There's some merit in this 3-point argument, but admittedly not a lot. 3 is only marginally easier to remove than 4, the counter DOES usually expire before you can remove anything, and 6, while significantly easier to remove than 7, usually requires a bad trade anyway. Personally, if I see the opponent using his leader charge on a 4p card, I'm going to be OK with it. All in all, the proposed nerf is not going to have any impact. I think increasing provision to 5 might be a better choice.
We'll agree to disagree on that. Using a leader charge to get it to 6 is in no way a good trade and off the top of my head I can list SK, ST and SY who can easily answer a 6pt card in 1 or 2 turns. Heck, even NR can do that easily now and NG can play locks a 100 times so they're good. So what exactly is the aim? Certainly not balance. Your focus seems to just be one one situation... IF it's played in round 1, turn 1. What about the rest?
If King Chrum gets a provision Nerf (or 2 hopefully) then there will already be a provision Nerf that will force removal of an Ogroid from that deck, which will in turn make it impossible for Enraged Cyclops to be changed on the same turn. If it brings that to 2 turns or higher and at 3 power on deploy. Then that is sufficiently balanced for now. I will wait to see the effects of that change before provision nerfing a low to mid range card that isn't played anywhere else. The Might mechanic shouldn't exist, I hate it. But the card that makes Ogroids problematic is King Chrum and the carry over points that is plaguing not just MO but all factions currently.
Last edited:
If it takes 2 turns to remove a 4p card, that's not "easy" removal or a good trade. Not to go into nitpicking, but ST does not have an "easy" way to remove a 6 point card in 1 turn. I prefer 5p Cyclops because I'm actually against Chrum provision nerf. I think nerfing Cyclops and especially Jotunn is going to help balancing this deck out a lot. At least that's a good start in my opinion. In general, 15p should be used VERY sparingly and reserved for something that's straight stupid, like Eclipse and possibly Renfri.
It doesn't take 2 turns to remove a 4p card with 3 power. The scenario you highlighted includes a leader charge bringing it's power to 6. The same is done in multiple other factions. NR, SY engines do the same and a leader charge puts them out of easy removal range. If a leader charge is used, it's clearly not going to be an easy removal, nor should it be. That's what leader charges are for but it shouldn't make removal impossible. 6 power isn't impossible. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
As for King Chrum. No card should have a 20 pt carry-over + Ozzy reuse and it's very binary because you absolutely cannot pass in the 1st round regardless of coin flip. You have to answer it or that's pretty much the end of the match. The card is fundamentally broken and is not healthy for the game at all. MO is my main faction but I can recognize when something will lead to toxic gameplay and I will be voting to Nerf Chrum as hard as I will other faction cards. Many players will not agree because they either want to use the card or an equally oppressive card in their faction that they don't want nerfed. That kind of thinking will just kill the game faster than it's dying.
Any card that creates copies of other cards, tutors from the deck, removal (with no limit) or carries over points should be nerfed. That might be an unpopular take but it's one that I continue to believe.
Last edited:
Carapace gives veil to monsters so how would you lock it?
I have to agree that correct way is to add provisions to cyclops and Jotun
Btw everyone talks against spaming cards but how none mentions one of the biggest offenders - Vanadain, heist and Simlas. 50 points uniteractive slam that can benefit from both short and long r3. Imo Vanadain should get Philippe treatment down to 5 and at least one of the other 2 should get provion up.
That's a fair point but if we're talking about NG, they have the cheapest removals in the entire game and multiple ways to do it so I think they'll be ok. It's one of the only factions that can yoink a 20 pt King Chrum and replay it. They are the worst matchup for an Ogroid deck.
I have no beef with Jotun. I think Speartip Awake and Speartip Asleep are much more worthy candidates for a Nerf. Like I said, I don't just look at cards in isolation. If you look at Jotun
1. It can be reset 2. It cannot be used with Ozzy 3. It Restricts your deck by forcing 2 Ice Giants...the card is fine for what it does. Compared to Speartip who 1. Tutors a card from the deck 2. Cannot be reset 3 so there's only one way to answer it 3. Is an Ozzy target. One of the two Speartip's, if not both need a nerf. I have them in my main deck but again, I'm not opposed to a nerf because I think long term it's for the best.
Ppl seem to just want to nerf Ogroids for playing tall and I disagree with that. These cards do not do anything else... they don't do damage, they don't boost and they don't carry over points. They aren't OP just because they are tall units. The most valuable cards in the game are cards that either do removal or they tutor other cards from your deck. Those two things give you an advantage over several rounds. A tall unit just plays for one round and that's it.
On the Vanadain discussion. To your point I think Heist is the big problem. Vanadain was strong but not oppressive until the Heist card came about. Heist is the card that I think needs to be nerfed. Playing a card 3 times without limitation is ridiculous but because it's not a tall unit no one is talking about it even though it amasses far more points.
Last edited:
My take on nerfs to Ogroids.
First, I will not be voting to nerf Ogoids because I have chosen to focus my votes on non-meta cards — if all people choose only to vote on meta quality decks, we will never see anything truly new. These comments would apply if I were to vote on nerfs.
I would start by identifying targets for nerfs —cards that create problems: usually cards that play for too much value, but they could be cards that are binary or parts of broken combinations. Cards I have heard discussed (or would add to discussion) include:
Speartip -- in its basic form, Old Speartip is 12 points for 11 provisions (with tall punish liability). This is bad return on an 11 provision card. The only way he plays above the provision curve is if he is summoned with the base power boost, but then he should be considered an 18 for 13 as one should account for the provisions (above four) spent on Old Speartip: Asleep. This is competitive, but not great -- especially since it is easily denied. The only way one can argue that Old Speartip is OP is by counting graveyard carryover. And since this is only accessible by either Witched Sabbath or Ozzrel. I would argue that if graveyard carryover is an actual problem, the blame fits more on the cards that access it.
Jotunn -- Jotunn is 15 for 8 -- well above the point/provision curve. But one should also count extra provisions spent on Ice Giants (cards you generally hope to mulligan and never play) to make Jotunn 15 for 10. This is still good. But I would argue that with Jotun's vulnerability to both reset and tall punish, he would not be a priority.
Golyat -- At 12 for 7, Golyat does give about two more points that I would normally expect from a good 7-provision card. But the deathwish can be problematic -- a risk that I think offsets the 2 points.
Enraged Cyclops — 10 for 4 is well above the typical 7 (or less) for 4 of typical cheap bronzes. But I think it would be healthier for the game if all 4 provision cards were buffed to this level as that would reduce the RNG from drawing fewer gold cards than one’s opponent.
And that takes us to the cards that are not “just” pointslam. But please note that these cards add spice to Ogroid decks.
Chrum — at roughly 20 for 14, Chrum is nowhere near as strong as most scenarios; any real problem is with the resilience and no nerf will handle that. A 20 point resilient card is just too big. It is binary in that it loses significant value if not found by round 2, it’s tempo is so great that purify as a response typically loses a card and no response typically loses more than that. Tall punish or lose situations are very binary. I would support nerfing Chrum just on principle — even if the nerf is relatively useless.
Tugo — in Ogroid decks, Tugo is probably a one point per turn engine. But in many (usually non-Ogroid) decks he can really be abused by the likes of Arachas Queen and Witches Sabbath. But the problem here is really not Tugo — it is Arachas Queen and possibly Sabbath.
Riptide — Riptide is a minimal 10 for 8 and often 16 or more for 8 with significant removal. Even at 10 for 8, it out performs any other 8 provision removal and is hence used in any deck desiring this level of removal. It would be my first choice — probably for a power nerf.
Honestly, except for nerfing Riptide, the specific card chosen for a provision nerf is largely irrelevant. No other decks will benefit significantly by including these cards — and none will be left out of Ogroid decks. Thus any provision nerf has the exact same effect on decks. I would argue that nerfing a bronze might make sense as this impacts the deck twice — unless that would be over-nerfing.
First, I will not be voting to nerf Ogoids because I have chosen to focus my votes on non-meta cards — if all people choose only to vote on meta quality decks, we will never see anything truly new. These comments would apply if I were to vote on nerfs.
I would start by identifying targets for nerfs —cards that create problems: usually cards that play for too much value, but they could be cards that are binary or parts of broken combinations. Cards I have heard discussed (or would add to discussion) include:
- Chrum -- too much carry-over / too much tempo
- Speartip -- too much value / graveyard carry over
- Tugo -- too much potential engine value (outside true Ogroid decks)
- Riptide -- too much value for removal
- Jotunn -- too much value
- Golyat -- too much value
- Enraged Cyclops -- too much value
Speartip -- in its basic form, Old Speartip is 12 points for 11 provisions (with tall punish liability). This is bad return on an 11 provision card. The only way he plays above the provision curve is if he is summoned with the base power boost, but then he should be considered an 18 for 13 as one should account for the provisions (above four) spent on Old Speartip: Asleep. This is competitive, but not great -- especially since it is easily denied. The only way one can argue that Old Speartip is OP is by counting graveyard carryover. And since this is only accessible by either Witched Sabbath or Ozzrel. I would argue that if graveyard carryover is an actual problem, the blame fits more on the cards that access it.
Jotunn -- Jotunn is 15 for 8 -- well above the point/provision curve. But one should also count extra provisions spent on Ice Giants (cards you generally hope to mulligan and never play) to make Jotunn 15 for 10. This is still good. But I would argue that with Jotun's vulnerability to both reset and tall punish, he would not be a priority.
Golyat -- At 12 for 7, Golyat does give about two more points that I would normally expect from a good 7-provision card. But the deathwish can be problematic -- a risk that I think offsets the 2 points.
Enraged Cyclops — 10 for 4 is well above the typical 7 (or less) for 4 of typical cheap bronzes. But I think it would be healthier for the game if all 4 provision cards were buffed to this level as that would reduce the RNG from drawing fewer gold cards than one’s opponent.
And that takes us to the cards that are not “just” pointslam. But please note that these cards add spice to Ogroid decks.
Chrum — at roughly 20 for 14, Chrum is nowhere near as strong as most scenarios; any real problem is with the resilience and no nerf will handle that. A 20 point resilient card is just too big. It is binary in that it loses significant value if not found by round 2, it’s tempo is so great that purify as a response typically loses a card and no response typically loses more than that. Tall punish or lose situations are very binary. I would support nerfing Chrum just on principle — even if the nerf is relatively useless.
Tugo — in Ogroid decks, Tugo is probably a one point per turn engine. But in many (usually non-Ogroid) decks he can really be abused by the likes of Arachas Queen and Witches Sabbath. But the problem here is really not Tugo — it is Arachas Queen and possibly Sabbath.
Riptide — Riptide is a minimal 10 for 8 and often 16 or more for 8 with significant removal. Even at 10 for 8, it out performs any other 8 provision removal and is hence used in any deck desiring this level of removal. It would be my first choice — probably for a power nerf.
Honestly, except for nerfing Riptide, the specific card chosen for a provision nerf is largely irrelevant. No other decks will benefit significantly by including these cards — and none will be left out of Ogroid decks. Thus any provision nerf has the exact same effect on decks. I would argue that nerfing a bronze might make sense as this impacts the deck twice — unless that would be over-nerfing.
Last edited:
When 30 votes are for + provision and
70 votes for - provision
will it then be -70+30= --40 ? (=no change)
or is this viewed separately? ( =nerf provision)
I just like Roach at 9
70 votes for - provision
will it then be -70+30= --40 ? (=no change)
or is this viewed separately? ( =nerf provision)
I just like Roach at 9
Yea I disagree with most of that. Your issue with Ogroids seem to be "Too much value". I'm not sure what exactly you expect them to play for. The core of the archetype is Tall Play, they do not add any value outside of that.
The most problematic decks right now are the ones boosting cards in their hand and deck that you cannot interact with. I find those to be more of an issue than Ogroids that you can actually disrupt or they just play for a set number of points. Minus King Chrum of course which again is why I think he is problematic and deserving of a nerf. None of those other Ogroids by themselves are OP, in fact many of them were already in the game before Chrum and they were not a problem.
In any case I don't want this to become an Ogroid thread. There are many other cards across the board that still need balancing. NG, NR and SK are still home to the most overtuned cards presently with far greater point swings and carry-over than even Ogroids. All of them, including MO should be addressed.
Last edited:
voting closes in 3 hours!
my picks. i replaced my top pick oneiromancer for regis. maybe i will put oneiromancer next time i be allowed to vote.
added pickemen, because it seems dame will get a buff and those two cards regularly play in same decks.
voting closed!
my picks. i replaced my top pick oneiromancer for regis. maybe i will put oneiromancer next time i be allowed to vote.
added pickemen, because it seems dame will get a buff and those two cards regularly play in same decks.
Post automatically merged:
voting closed!
Attachments
-
IMG_20231114_121358_049.jpg -
IMG_20231114_121401_089.jpg -
Screenshot_20231114-160946.png
Last edited:
These look good, I'm definitely including a nerf for Oneiromancy on the next balance cycle.
The only thing I'm confused by is Cave Troll because his power and provision is the same as most defenders. I think for the most part defenders are similar in power and provision across the board so why nerf just this one? I think if one gets nerfed then they all should since they do the same thing.
Apparently, I didn't. Thank goodness. I thought it was Reaver Hunter 2.0.
the devs fixed that on the last card changes (at the end of august season). GN and ciri now include card descriptions that make them exceptions for that reason.
edit: not august but september season.
Yeah, I see it. I'm not a reactionary am I. I just like to jump to conclusions and complain.
Ah well, like in all sports: the best players are not always the best coaches i guess...