Hot Fix for Grave Hag

[Restlessdingo32]

Ok..I'll leave gender jokes out of here.I had a couple but let's say ...I don't feel like getting strong Armed 8)

I was a guy last time I checked

Skryba86 I guess that was also the wrong phrasing

The way I like to play consume...would kill it.
and anyone else using the hag. She should be unscathed and left as is. If players can't see her coming a mile away..then I guess they deserve to get hagged.

I still say from my experience ... she's not an auto win like some 3rd round cards...
how bout those double or tripple dull blathanas?
or double or triple pirates?
or letho can also wreck you real good
bloody baron anyone?
Wheres the nerf cry for them?
oh yeah..those must be the decks you guys play ..lol
​

None of those cards are auto win with the right R3 cards and decision making prior to R3. They only create scenarios where the odds are heavily in your favor if you have them with CA. Grave Hag is the same way. With CA most 20-25+ swing cards will typically single-handedly win you the game R3. Without it they are often easy to shut down via resets, removal, shackles, lock units, damage units or, you guessed it, options designed to do the same thing, create a big swing as the final card played. Big surprise, a great number of decks rely on creating big point swings to win the game. The only variable is whether it's front or back loaded. As an example, Dwarves push tempo start to finish. Other decks push control at the start and end with big swings+CA.

 

[TheShift]

So pretty much the hag should be left alone.

because to change it..means changing all the other cards that basically do the same thing.
but instead of a timer..they just drop a couple insanely buffed units on any row

Where I need 2 ways to have to deal with them.
while others just have to deal with one...on a timer and starts as 2 little points

sounds fair

 

[el_Bosco]

It is fine... No need to further changes.

 

[SHALLAHJUSTICE]

Just for idea, what about give her 2 turns to trigger, and 3 strength.
So this make it so you can't just play her on the last card, but 2nd to last card, which gives about 2 turns to counter.

This.

 

[Nimraphel]

The problem is not Grave Hag. The problem is the coinflip.

Answering Grave Hag is easy enough even with Marching Orders. Any lock, Mardroeme, Peter Saar, Dol Blathanna Archer, Alzur's Thunder, you name it. This is further compounded by the fact that Consume doesn't run any CA tools except for Frightener, which is matched with another spy. Thus, it really often all boils down to who won the coinflip. Out-tempoing Consume is very easy, all it takes is a lacerate or mardroeme basically. However, if the consume player passes after that, it didn't net you any CA, particularly since consume often has some form of carry-over in the form of at least Nekker.

Solving the coinflip is the essence here, not Grave Hag. In and of herself, she is not OP by any stretch of imagination.

Rather than engage in (yet another - there are thousands at this point, with the majority built on flawed premises, just like this one) yet another nerf hunt, I would rather look at underlying mechanics that allows this to happen. Even if I don't see any problem with Hag.

Essential: Fixing coinflip. That is the real culprit behind many of those 15-25+ win conditions (DBP's, CDPC, Spotters, Grave Hag etc.). They are by nature very binary - going unanswered, they have a high chance of securing a victory - and the coinflip affecting their successrate so much is fundamentally unhealthy for the game. Fixing coinflip is essential.

Random thought: make weather tick before buffs are applied. Would allow weather more power over Grave Hag particularly (although her being agile somewhat circumvents that). Would also contribute to keeping other units a bit more in check, i.e. Redanian Knights as they would be 2 pts lower.

Ultimately however, stop the nerf calls on Grave Hag. She's a symptom of another problem, and not even a grave (...) symptom at that.

 

[SHALLAHJUSTICE]

She's such a snakey overpowered card.

You have been playing an elegant and beautiful two rounds, you have second guessed plays, you have forseen disasters and prevented them from happeneing, you have disabled gamewinning abilities time after time, you can smell your hard earned victory, it's within your grasp then this piece of garbage grave hag arrives to steal the match from the superior player.

You need to increase her timer to 2 at least.

 

[SHALLAHJUSTICE]

The problem is not Grave Hag. The problem is the coinflip.

Answering Grave Hag is easy enough even with Marching Orders. Any lock, Mardroeme, Peter Saar, Dol Blathanna Archer, Alzur's Thunder, you name it. This is further compounded by the fact that Consume doesn't run any CA tools except for Frightener, which is matched with another spy. Thus, it really often all boils down to who won the coinflip. Out-tempoing Consume is very easy, all it takes is a lacerate or mardroeme basically. However, if the consume player passes after that, it didn't net you any CA, particularly since consume often has some form of carry-over in the form of at least Nekker.

Solving the coinflip is the essence here, not Grave Hag. In and of herself, she is not OP by any stretch of imagination.

Hardly anyone has those kind of cards in hand at that point in the match.

 

[Nimraphel]

Hardly anyone has those kind of cards in hand at that point in the match.

Well if you see the amount of silver cards played, know you have accrued CA, and strongly suspect/know it is a grave hag deck... then saving one of those in hand is a pretty good idea.

Are we seriously complaining about an easily punishable card punishing us for failing to identify her (which is very easy) and for failing to calculate with punishing her? Seriously?

 

[Nimraphel]

She's such a snakey overpowered card.

You have been playing an elegant and beautiful two rounds, you have second guessed plays, you have forseen disasters and prevented them from happeneing, you have disabled gamewinning abilities time after time, you can smell your hard earned victory, it's within your grasp then this piece of garbage grave hag arrives to steal the match from the superior player.

You need to increase her timer to 2 at least.

*chuckle* obviously you haven't if you fail to identify that pretty much all consume decks run Grave Hag and haven't calculated with it.

Anyway, I'll bite: what beautiful plays did you do versus Consume? Did you shut down all his Arachas Behemoths instantly? Congratulations, then you've severely limited the Grave Hag. Did you lacerate his Arachas row? Congratulations, you probably either accrued immense CA if you subsequently pass, or you just won the round and can bleed him round 2, possibly even of his Grave Hag. Did you Igni/Scorch his Vran Warrior/Ekimmara? Great, the Arachas scenario applies again.

Consume is so vulnerable and easily countered. Furthermore, accruing CA against Consume is quite easy. Once again, it seems like you've gotten salty over one card that you consistently fail to play around, and rather than adapting we're on to yet another witch hunt. It's getting tiring.

Out of curiousty, which deck do you run? If you want to share the list then maybe there are some tweaks and optimizations which could help avoid it.

 

[SHALLAHJUSTICE]

*chuckle* obviously you haven't if you fail to identify that pretty much all consume decks run Grave Hag and haven't calculated with it.

Anyway, I'll bite: what beautiful plays did you do versus Consume? Did you shut down all his Arachas Behemoths instantly? Congratulations, then you've severely limited the Grave Hag. Did you lacerate his Arachas row? Congratulations, you probably either accrued immense CA if you subsequently pass, or you just won the round and can bleed him round 2, possibly even of his Grave Hag. Did you Igni/Scorch his Vran Warrior/Ekimmara? Great, the Arachas scenario applies again.

Consume is so vulnerable and easily countered. Furthermore, accruing CA against Consume is quite easy. Once again, it seems like you've gotten salty over one card that you consistently fail to play around, and rather than adapting we're on to yet another witch hunt. It's getting tiring.

Out of curiousty, which deck do you run? If you want to share the list then maybe there are some tweaks and optimizations which could help avoid it.

Pretty much.

Sorry I got caught up in mass hysteria and fear and forgot to specify what scenario stresses me out, it's when she is the very last card played.

Then what can you do but watch her strength skyrocket?

It's not like she is a major pain in my ass, i have shackled her a few times, i just don't agree with her concept, i think such a sudden boost in stength is cheap and unfair.

 

[Nimraphel]

Pretty much.

Sorry I got caught up in mass hysteria and fear and forgot to specify what scenario stresses me out, it's when she is the very last card played.

Then what can you do but watch her strength skyrocket?

It's not like she is a major pain in my ass, i have shackled her a few times, i just don't agree with her concept, i think such a sudden boost in stength is cheap and unfair.

I think the problem is fundamental and stretches beyond Grave Hag, namely tied to impact of the coinflip becoming increasingly unhealthy as the game gravitates towards win conditions (DBP's, Spotters, Pirate Captains, Grave Hag etc etc.). The coinflip has always been problematic, even more so in Closed Beta when control Scoia'tael ruled supreme and games were literally being decided on whether or not ST could play Milva+Roach as their first card, but it is becoming increasingly apparent once again. It's even worse in tournament settings, as any who plays competitively can testify to.

Fixing the coinflip - something CDPR has stated they are working on but hasn't divulged how - will go a long way towards solving this "issue". Ideally, getting to play the last card should be an active goal being pursued rather than being a 50/50 chance, as is often the case right now. Pursuing this goal should come with a trade-off, i.e. by "sacrificing" a gold slot to run Ciri, or a silver slot to run Ocvist, on top of the spy that everybody runs.

Having a unit like Grave Hag is not problematic in and of itself, no more than 18-20 point Spotters/Pirate Captains/DBP's are (which can be run several of). It's a singular win condition that is telegraphed from early on in any given match, comes with numerous counters (provided getting to play the last card becomes more determinable by players rather than by chance).

That is the fundamental underlying problem which Grave Hag is a symptom of. Regarding Grave Hag specifically, denying her food (i.e. by shutting down Behemoths or Vrans early on) can mitigate the effect. It is why Consume is so inherently vulnerable. This was very popular in the last closed beta patch, to the point of Consume decks entirely skipping Grave Hag because they could not guarantee her getting adequate fuel. Right now it is harder due to Behemoths having 6+2 health (I think 6+1 would be better personally, but that's another matter), but it is still doable to severely mitigate her size provided your deck has tools to shut it down entirely or limit it severely in its infancy.

Also, another reason I think it's wrong to call for nerfs on any given unit at this point is that the meta is still young and not at all settled. Thus, tech choices are all over the place, and often not entirely efficient simply because there are many 'aberrant' decks running around which might be able to ignore entire tech choices. Once the meta settles more and tech choices become more 'universal', I would not be surprised to see Consume fall behind (as usual).

 

[vikaroot]

Personally I don't think Gravve hag a problem because she can be easily played around. The only thing that annoys me is the 8 strength of behemoth which is kinda weird in comparison to other point-generating tools like war long ship or magonel.
However if people think grave hag op then cdpr can cap it at 20~25 because then it's still a finisher but not too over-stat.

 

[Nimraphel]

Personally I don't think Gravve hag a problem because she can be easily played around. The only thing that annoys me is the 8 strength of behemoth which is kinda weird in comparison to other point-generating tools like war long ship or magonel.
However if people think grave hag op then cdpr can cap it at 20~25 because then it's still a finisher but not too over-stat.

Well technically it's only 6 strength, but since it diminishes for every consumption, I don't think it's particularly out of line with other point generating tools. That being said, and like I wrote in my post above, 6+1 could easily be defended since it would make it susceptible to Alzur's Thunder.

Regarding an arbitrary cap on Grave Hag, I don't like it; there are counterplays that mitigates its size. If so, we need a cap on Bloody Baron as well. It just becomes messy with arbitrary rules/caps that supercedes the card's actual mechanics.

 

[Tir_na_Lia]

Leave the old hag alone, there are countless ways to counter it.

Worry about cards who do not have such a simple answer, instead.

 

[frbfree]

Rather than engage in (yet another - there are thousands at this point, with the majority built on flawed premises, just like this one) yet another nerf hunt, I would rather look at underlying mechanics that allows this to happen. Even if I don't see any problem with Hag.

I hardly think suggesting that a card that doesn't need Agility, having it removed, is a nerf hunt or a flawed premise.

Well if you see the amount of silver cards played, know you have accrued CA, and strongly suspect/know it is a grave hag deck... then saving one of those in hand is a pretty good idea.

Are we seriously complaining about an easily punishable card punishing us for failing to identify her (which is very easy) and for failing to calculate with punishing her? Seriously?

Identifying her is not the problem. Just because you know she is coming, doesn't mean you can just magically get card advantage. Even the best player gets a bad hand and needs to play an extra card to get Round 1 or 2. The simple fact of the matter, and to your point, is that if you can identify her and know she is coming, you should be able to play to her even if you don't have CA. Is she easily countered by Skellige Storm? Yes she is. But not if you can play her on any row you want. You can't defend against her when she has that kind of versatility.

 

[Burza46]

So, I've been noticing that there's an emerging superstar in the recent meta, and she is packing a consistent 20-25 value (or more) in the popular net versions of Monster Consume. It's fine, the strength doesn't bother me, even though she is vastly superior than gold cards of like abilities (I'm looking at you, Bloody Baron), and superior in Round 3 than virtually every other silver. She's almost an auto-win if the player has card advantage.

Therefore, rather than nerf her to the ground by capping her consumption, or increasing her timer, I'm making a simple proposition. Take away her agility. Give people without card advantage a chance. You would still need to be terribly lucky, even if you did know where she was going to be placed, and time a weather spell or a cow carcass at just the right moment, but at least you would have a swing at the pitch, rather than not being able to take the bat off your shoulder.

I don't think it's an unreasonable change, to be honest.

Thank you for your feedback

 

[4RM3D]

Consume is so vulnerable and easily countered. Furthermore, accruing CA against Consume is quite easy.

I guess you've hit the nail on the head right here. While the power swing of Grave Hag in the last round might be too big, Consume Monsters still actually have to build up towards it and it's quite a rocky road ahead. You don't have to counter Grave Hag directly, just interrupt the Consume play instead.

 

[Nimraphel]

I hardly think suggesting that a card that doesn't need Agility, having it removed, is a nerf hunt or a flawed premise.



Identifying her is not the problem. Just because you know she is coming, doesn't mean you can just magically get card advantage. Even the best player gets a bad hand and needs to play an extra card to get Round 1 or 2. The simple fact of the matter, and to your point, is that if you can identify her and know she is coming, you should be able to play to her even if you don't have CA. Is she easily countered by Skellige Storm? Yes she is. But not if you can play her on any row you want. You can't defend against her when she has that kind of versatility.

I am not against removing her agility - I think that would be the most reasonable change/nerf, if any.

Please read my previous post - it addresses the fundamental problem which you also describe, namely the impact the coinflip has on card advantage, rather than card advantage being more something more determinable by players due to deck design (trade-offs, i.e. Ocvist and Ciri).

 

[frbfree]

I am not against removing her agility - I think that would be the most reasonable change/nerf, if any.

Please read my previous post - it addresses the fundamental problem which you also describe, namely the impact the coinflip has on card advantage, rather than card advantage being more something more determinable by players due to deck design (trade-offs, i.e. Ocvist and Ciri).

I saw your post, and I agree the coin flip is problematic, I just think that you're talking about something that is a fundamental change to the game. And I don't expect it to be as easily or as quickly addressed as something such as tweaking silver cards. Though it needs to be addressed.

 

[Nimraphel]

I saw your post, and I agree the coin flip is problematic, I just think that you're talking about something that is a fundamental change to the game. And I don't expect it to be as easily or as quickly addressed as something such as tweaking silver cards. Though it needs to be addressed.

I agree, there is definitely not a simple fix to it. Unfortunately. However, there are possible fixes (I won't go into every single proposal, as there are almost a hundred at this point I think if I sifted through reddit), and it would inherently solve a lot of what people perceive as problems. My point is, rather than neutering even more cards that are symptoms, I would rather focus on treating the root cause. Making Card Advantage a more determinable and pursuable goal by players in the way they design decks is, I think, a better path to go; you trade raw power for card advantage tools in deck-building, hoping to be able to utilize it into playing a strong but vulnerable finisher, i.e. Grave Hag.