Wow they ended up hitting all three of the rogue cards i was suspecting the most. Such a huge mistake to leave Druid untouched though. Also, can anyone read what the change is to the Pirate Quest?
I hope they will do something about Mr. Smite . Either change the charge to rush or only give Mr. Smite himself charge. The amount of value combining this card with the quest is ridiculous.
These are overall great nerfs, Scabbs is still insane at 8-mana without any change to his battlecry or hero power, the rest of the nerfs really do a great job addressing all the BS uninteractive decks out there. I don't get what the change to the Warrior quest is though as for Rokara, the Valorous, is she buffed to give 10 armor when played?
I mean 4 mana Sorcerer's Apprentice is prolly enough, but why oh why blizz keeps insisting on making the reduction to 0 mana possible? most of the community was wanting a nerf that reads "but not less than (1)"
they printed Summoning Portal once, and they knew it would be important to prevent reduction to 0 mana. Just use the same logic, please blizz
I mean 4 mana Sorcerer's Apprentice is prolly enough, but why oh why blizz keeps insisting on making the reduction to 0 mana possible? most of the community was wanting a nerf that reads "but not less than (1)"
they printed Summoning Portal once, and they knew it would be important to prevent reduction to 0 mana. Just use the same logic, please blizz
The portal was broken bc of the interaction with the mech tribe. Sorcerer's gives u a single reduction aura to your spells , unlike the mechwarper snip snap portal combo.
I mean 4 mana Sorcerer's Apprentice is prolly enough, but why oh why blizz keeps insisting on making the reduction to 0 mana possible? most of the community was wanting a nerf that reads "but not less than (1)"
they printed Summoning Portal once, and they knew it would be important to prevent reduction to 0 mana. Just use the same logic, please blizz
What's the point of changing the text to make spells cost not less than (1)? That completely kills the card, you might as well remove the text entirely, since the majority of good mage spells cost 1-2 (therefore 0-1 after Flow or Siphon Mana). At 4 mana it makes all the stupid Mage decks out there meme-tier, but at least still playable as memes
I don't understand the point of not changing mana reduction to sorcerer apprentice and incanter's flow (aka adding a "not less than 1") neither... The problem is the abuse of both of this cards in combo decks, but not in other decks. Increasing the mana cost is killing the cards for ALL the non-combo decks.
But I guess they are lazy and don't want to waste some time editing the card effect.
I don't understand the point of not changing mana reduction to sorcerer apprentice and incanter's flow (aka adding a "not less than 1") neither... The problem is the abuse of both of this cards in combo decks, but not in other decks. Increasing the mana cost is killing the cards for ALL the non-combo decks.
But I guess they are lazy and don't want to waste some time editing the card effect.
If we're talking wild, sorc and incanters don't see any play in any decklist that is even remotely relevant outside of ignite and apm. So even if the increased cost did "kill" these cards for said non otk-oriented decks, they're all meme decks that can't consistently win games in the current wild meta regardless. If anything, these nerfs will only serve to enhance their already established meme status
"Not below 1" just doesn't make any sense on a card like Sorcerer's Apprentice. Summoning Portal sucks and is a bad example of... anything.
The card costing 4 mana is a HUGE nerf. As is the nerf to Incanter's Flow. 4 mana do nothing is just... really hard to justify in a deck. And 4 mana is a lot more than 3 generally.
TFW the entire thread is complaining about Mage and Hunter when Mage barely makes it to T3
TFW they nerfed old Quest Mage Open the Waygate just because it was an incredibly uninteractive and oppressive deck, ignoring the actual winrate of the deck and the actual power level of the deck. As of now, dying to turn 7 Mozaki + 15 0-mana spells ( considering 10 of those spells were drawn in that turn) doesn't feel neither fun, nor interactive
Wow they ended up hitting all three of the rogue cards i was suspecting the most. Such a huge mistake to leave Druid untouched though. Also, can anyone read what the change is to the Pirate Quest?
Text the same, no changes.
Wow , they completely crippled mage ... forever. Oh well , time to abuse res priest again.
We're living in a c'thun druid and mass poly age.
I've been destroying res priests with C'thun druid by casting poison seeds multiple times.
Didnt play much past d5 , and i didnt see any mages running big spells on the way there. I guess i can use Breath of the Infinite for u.
I hope they will do something about Mr. Smite . Either change the charge to rush or only give Mr. Smite himself charge. The amount of value combining this card with the quest is ridiculous.
These are overall great nerfs, Scabbs is still insane at 8-mana without any change to his battlecry or hero power, the rest of the nerfs really do a great job addressing all the BS uninteractive decks out there. I don't get what the change to the Warrior quest is though as for Rokara, the Valorous, is she buffed to give 10 armor when played?
Yes , its pointless.
That 1 extra Mana to Incanter's Flow doesn't address Mozaki Mage much, does it?
If text on the Quest itself remains the same, most likely the 2nd stage and/or 3rd stage gets slowed down by summoning 3 pirates instead of 2...
I mean 4 mana Sorcerer's Apprentice is prolly enough, but why oh why blizz keeps insisting on making the reduction to 0 mana possible? most of the community was wanting a nerf that reads "but not less than (1)"
they printed Summoning Portal once, and they knew it would be important to prevent reduction to 0 mana. Just use the same logic, please blizz
The portal was broken bc of the interaction with the mech tribe. Sorcerer's gives u a single reduction aura to your spells , unlike the mechwarper snip snap portal combo.
What's the point of changing the text to make spells cost not less than (1)? That completely kills the card, you might as well remove the text entirely, since the majority of good mage spells cost 1-2 (therefore 0-1 after Flow or Siphon Mana). At 4 mana it makes all the stupid Mage decks out there meme-tier, but at least still playable as memes
I don't understand the point of not changing mana reduction to sorcerer apprentice and incanter's flow (aka adding a "not less than 1") neither... The problem is the abuse of both of this cards in combo decks, but not in other decks. Increasing the mana cost is killing the cards for ALL the non-combo decks.
But I guess they are lazy and don't want to waste some time editing the card effect.
If we're talking wild, sorc and incanters don't see any play in any decklist that is even remotely relevant outside of ignite and apm. So even if the increased cost did "kill" these cards for said non otk-oriented decks, they're all meme decks that can't consistently win games in the current wild meta regardless. If anything, these nerfs will only serve to enhance their already established meme status
"Not below 1" just doesn't make any sense on a card like Sorcerer's Apprentice. Summoning Portal sucks and is a bad example of... anything.
The card costing 4 mana is a HUGE nerf. As is the nerf to Incanter's Flow. 4 mana do nothing is just... really hard to justify in a deck. And 4 mana is a lot more than 3 generally.
TFW they nerfed old Quest Mage Open the Waygate just because it was an incredibly uninteractive and oppressive deck, ignoring the actual winrate of the deck and the actual power level of the deck. As of now, dying to turn 7 Mozaki + 15 0-mana spells ( considering 10 of those spells were drawn in that turn) doesn't feel neither fun, nor interactiveWell they should alse nerf Quest Priest.
You can have all the armour in the world and 8 minions on your side but they can't stop 'you lose' button.
Regardless of the actual Quest Priest winrate.
Thank God you aren't on the balance team.
Yeah, I would have fixed it the usual way: increased the Shard cost by 1.