But a payoff card for a "start of game" card with no deckbuilding restriction is, by its very nature... well, you said it, bullshit. It's an invalid intent, regardless of whether the execution is good or not.
this blanket of policy of "Maestra is bad because I say so" is just not going to cut it.
First off, I never said that. I'm saying Wildpaw Gnoll as a payoff card specifically for Maestra is a bad design intent. I think Maestra is a good design.
I would not classify Double Agent as a payoff card for Maestra. I would classify it as a payoff for Thief Rogue generally. This is an important distinction, because you get full value our of Double Agent if you Reconnaissance or Swashburglar or Wand Thief on turn 2.
I think that the appropriate payoff for Maestra is that Pandaren Importer and Wandmaker both function as Thief Rogue generators prior to switching. I wouldn't have a problem if an additional payoff for Maestra was, say, a Neutral version of Babbling Book (1/1 for 1, Battlecry: Add a random spell of your class to your hand.) I would support options that encourage Rogues to "masquerade" as the other class harder and/or longer.
But reducing Cost for drawing Rogue cards in a Rogue deck is fundamentally bad design. I get that it makes Maestra stronger, but that's a lazy, brute force way to do it. It's ugly, and it's wrong.
Wildpaw Gnoll should be a payoff for being a Thief Rogue. It should not be a payoff for running Maestra in your deck. I believe these points, and I believe them strongly, but that doesn't mean I want Maestra to be a bad card. But it should be a card about being a Thief Rogue, and not about reducing the cost of a single two-of to 0.
Changing the interaction would require changing the mechanics of the Maestra card altogether
False. Wildpaw Gnoll could have been changed to "Costs (1) less for each non-Rogue class card added to your hand this game," without changing Maestra at all.
I don't understand why everyone keeps calling the interaction bullshit. You may not have expected it, but that doesn't mean it's bad. It is certainly not unintended.
...
So yes, Gnoll is the correct nerf here, and if any mechanism involved in this debacle is a "bad idea," it's mana cheat.
No, mana cheat is not the only bad idea here.
I agree with you that it was intentional, because in the patch notes Blizzard says it was intended to be a payoff card for playing Maestra. I don't see why Blizz would lie about their intent here.
But a payoff card for a "start of game" card with no deckbuilding restriction is, by its very nature... well, you said it, bullshit. It's an invalid intent, regardless of whether the execution is good or not.
Deleting an intentional mechanic from the game entirely as the first thing you do if it is too powerful is so nonsensical that I'm genuinely impressed some of you are saying it with a straight face. That can be a thing to consider doing if it it continues causing the same problem beyond this expansion and this nerf, but now? Absolutely not. Gnoll was intended to be a pay-off for Maestra from the start, so the correct thing to do is to try and make it work. You don't throw away card design as a kneejerk reaction to an imbalance unless the problems go far beyond power level.
I respectfully disagree. Creating a "payoff card" for a "Start of Game" trigger with no deckbuilding restriction is a bad idea. It's the kind of thing that shouldn't exist in the game AT ALL. I get that making Gnoll a payoff for Maestra was, according to Blizzard, the intent of their design, but their intent is bad and they should feel bad. They should have abandoned that intent and pivoted to making Gnoll a payoff for playing actual burgle rogue cards.
First off, I never said that. I'm saying Wildpaw Gnoll as a payoff card specifically for Maestra is a bad design intent. I think Maestra is a good design.
I would not classify Double Agent as a payoff card for Maestra. I would classify it as a payoff for Thief Rogue generally. This is an important distinction, because you get full value our of Double Agent if you Reconnaissance or Swashburglar or Wand Thief on turn 2.
I think that the appropriate payoff for Maestra is that Pandaren Importer and Wandmaker both function as Thief Rogue generators prior to switching. I wouldn't have a problem if an additional payoff for Maestra was, say, a Neutral version of Babbling Book (1/1 for 1, Battlecry: Add a random spell of your class to your hand.) I would support options that encourage Rogues to "masquerade" as the other class harder and/or longer.
But reducing Cost for drawing Rogue cards in a Rogue deck is fundamentally bad design. I get that it makes Maestra stronger, but that's a lazy, brute force way to do it. It's ugly, and it's wrong.
Wildpaw Gnoll should be a payoff for being a Thief Rogue. It should not be a payoff for running Maestra in your deck. I believe these points, and I believe them strongly, but that doesn't mean I want Maestra to be a bad card. But it should be a card about being a Thief Rogue, and not about reducing the cost of a single two-of to 0.
False. Wildpaw Gnoll could have been changed to "Costs (1) less for each non-Rogue class card added to your hand this game," without changing Maestra at all.
No, mana cheat is not the only bad idea here.
I agree with you that it was intentional, because in the patch notes Blizzard says it was intended to be a payoff card for playing Maestra. I don't see why Blizz would lie about their intent here.
But a payoff card for a "start of game" card with no deckbuilding restriction is, by its very nature... well, you said it, bullshit. It's an invalid intent, regardless of whether the execution is good or not.
I respectfully disagree. Creating a "payoff card" for a "Start of Game" trigger with no deckbuilding restriction is a bad idea. It's the kind of thing that shouldn't exist in the game AT ALL. I get that making Gnoll a payoff for Maestra was, according to Blizzard, the intent of their design, but their intent is bad and they should feel bad. They should have abandoned that intent and pivoted to making Gnoll a payoff for playing actual burgle rogue cards.