So... the Blightmaker?

+
Just wondering who thought it would be a good idea to give NG a 5p card that stupidly opens with 11 points, which includes 2 damage and thinning, potentially times 2. And the condition is what? Not to draw the assassin? Is there a more insane 5p card in the game at the moment? Even SK doesn't have anything like that, lol.
 
Just wondering who thought it would be a good idea to give NG a 5p card that stupidly opens with 11 points, which includes 2 damage and thinning, potentially times 2. And the condition is what? Not to draw the assassin? Is there a more insane 5p card in the game at the moment? Even SK doesn't have anything like that, lol.
Not that I'm the biggest fan of it since I keep running into that deck and haven't figured out how to beat it yet, but 11 points + thinning for technically 9 provisions since the assassin costs 4 isn't the worst offender when it comes to point swings in my book.
 
THIS. I'm so tired of seeing "it's 11 for 5" when it most certainly is not.
Yes, it is 11 for 5 that thins a 4p bronze (so it is better than an 11 for 5 bronze).
Admittedly consistency is a downside compared to the other thinning packages, however you most certainly cannot claim a 4p card to be a provision cost.

By the logic of this being an 11 for 9 the thinning packages like Sewer Raiders are 8 for 10, which is certainly not true.
 
It doesn't matter that you also have to have that 4p card in the deck.
Of course it does.
Those 4p cards cost you 8 Provisions during deckbuilding, and you need to have them in the deck (not in hand, milled, discarded or otherwise disabled) for the combo to work.

This "11 for 5" argument is so fundamentally wrong that it isn't even worth any more time (i.e. don't waste you time quoting me; I will ignore it). It makes literally no sense when you look at it from a logical perspective.
 
Of course it does.
Those 4p cards cost you 8 Provisions during deckbuilding, and you need to have them in the deck (not in hand, milled, discarded or otherwise disabled) for the combo to work.

This "11 for 5" argument is so fundamentally wrong that it isn't even worth any more time. It makes literally no sense when you look at it from a logical perspective.
I agree that a simple "11 for 5" is not true, however you cannot deny that you have to run 4p fillers in any case.
All cards will cost 4p in the deckbuilder, so for a 25 card deck it makes more sense to consider the 50 + leader provisions upgrade provisions you invest to upgrade those initial 25 4p cards and in this frame you quickly see that provision-wise you invest only a single provision to upgrade into this combo.
The fact that the Mage Assassin has to be in the deck is admittedly a downside, however it being thinned without any additional cost about makes up for the opportunity cost of having to run it.

I disagree that those 2 4p cards cost you 8 provisions, given that these spots have to be filled by 2 cards, which costs at the very least 8 provisions, even if you would not run the Mage Assassins.

Also compared to the other thinning packages Blightmaker + Mage Assassin costs 1 provision less and gives 3 points more, while not having to meet a condition on the field (although one can only start the combo with 1 of the 2 cards this also means one can run this package twice).
 
  • RED Point
Reactions: rrc
It make every kind of sense there is. You should only count the provisions of the cards that are PLAYED, not summoned from deck. Deckbuilding provisions don't matter when thinning cards are concerned, especially when these thinning cards are 4p. Including them is not any kind of penalty against your provision pool, because you don't have to play them. Mahakam volunteer is 8 for 5 plus thinning, which makes its value better than a plain 8 for 5. It's not 8 for 10. This is obvious. Basic.

Back to the original point, though. What in the world is up with this card??
 
It make every kind of sense there is. You should only count the provisions of the cards that are PLAYED, not summoned from deck. Deckbuilding provisions don't matter when thinning cards are concerned, especially when these thinning cards are 4p. Including them is not any kind of penalty against your provision pool, because you don't have to play them. Mahakam volunteer is 8 for 5 plus thinning, which makes its value better than a plain 8 for 5. It's not 8 for 10. This is obvious. Basic.

Back to the original point, though. What in the world is up with this card??
That is not true though. Affan most definitely has a large opportunity cost, given that you have to run an 8p card you cannot draw.
Also Mahakam Volunteers is an 8 for 6 that thins a 4p card, you are forced to invest 2 upgrade provisions to run that package in the first place (the fact that you do not have draw the other card does not mean you do not have to invest those provisions, in fact you are also required not to draw that card, so Draconifors is right in that regard).
If anything this only makes Blightmaker comparatively less balanced though, given that the card one has to run does not even cost any additional provisions.
 
I'm gonna start this by saying i absolutely hate NG. I would love nothing more than for that faction to be deleted from the game. But with that being said, Draconifors is right. It is 11 for 9. It's a card combo and the combo would not work without the mage.
Think of it this way, if you do not include the mage in the deck then you have a 4 for 5 or at best a 7 for 5. Both cards HAVE to be in the deck in order to get max value, the mage takes up space in your deck over other cards specifically for that combo and since you committed 9 provisions for those 2 cards in order to get that combo it is a 11 for 9.
Still, i would agree that it's too much. The fact that it grants deck thinning alone is very valuable. My suggestion for a nerf would be to remove the Golem that it spawns. That way tou get an 8 for 9 but you get that sweet, sweet deck thinning which considering some thinning bronzes are 8 for 10 i'd say it's more than fair.
 
I'm gonna start this by saying i absolutely hate NG. I would love nothing more than for that faction to be deleted from the game. But with that being said, Draconifors is right. It is 11 for 9. It's a card combo and the combo would not work without the mage.
Think of it this way, if you do not include the mage in the deck then you have a 4 for 5 or at best a 7 for 5. Both cards HAVE to be in the deck in order to get max value, the mage takes up space in your deck over other cards specifically for that combo and since you committed 9 provisions for those 2 cards in order to get that combo it is a 11 for 9.
Still, i would agree that it's too much. The fact that it grants deck thinning alone is very valuable. My suggestion for a nerf would be to remove the Golem that it spawns. That way tou get an 8 for 9 but you get that sweet, sweet deck thinning which considering some thinning bronzes are 8 for 10 i'd say it's more than fair.
11 for 9 is wrong though, given that you have to play a 4p+ card in its spot anyways. Since you do not play that card you do not lose those additional provisions (unless you thin to exactly 0 and even then this is debatable).
Playing Blightmaker and then Mage Assassin both from hand is an 11 for 9.
Also I disagree with the statement that the other thinning packages would be 8 for 10, they are definitely not a waste provision-wise.

Edit: The issue I have this argument is the fact that (outside of Hyperthin) you end up with 4p+ cards left in your deck. Using those leftover provisions you had no access to anyways cannot be considered a cost and even for Hyperthin it would only be a cost if you would already want to thin to 0 without it, even though it majorly outclasses all other thinning options.
 
Last edited:
  • RED Point
Reactions: rrc

Guest 4375874

Guest
I'm not even sure what the point of the debate is....Let's say it's 11 for 9 for arguments sake. It's still overtuned. Thinning cards aren't supposed to play for that kind of value, their main purpose has always been thinning not huge point swings. MO Wild Hunt Riders is (by your definition) 8 for 10, SY Sewer raiders, NG Hunting Pack the same thing. The point value for thinning cards have always been less than their cost if we're using your calculation. Blightmaker is too much especially since it's condition is simply not having a card in hand. Something all the other thinning cards already need to do to work + their primary condition, all to play for far less than this card.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
11 for 9 is wrong though, given that you have to play a 4p+ card in its spot anyways. Since you do not play that card you do not lose those additional provisions (unless you thin to exactly 0 and even then this is debatable).
Playing Blightmaker and then Mage Assassin both from hand is an 11 for 9.
Also I disagree with the statement that the other thinning packages would be 8 for 10, they are definitely not a waste provision-wise.
No. That would be playing 2 different cards on 2 different turns with 2 different and individually strong abilities. This is a card COMBO. The very existance of the mage assassin is for this combo otherwise it would be a useless card. These cards on their own are almost useless but when you put them together as a combo they should be strong.
Though as i said, i agree this is too strong.
 
Funny thing is, this combo would have been just slightly stronger every other bronze thinning combo out there, because it would achieve the same 8 points tempo plus thin a card with a 5 and a 4p card instead of 2 identical 5p cards, but someone out there looked at it and went, "Ehhh, this is a bit weak. Let's also give it a Guardian!" I mean, holy smokes.
 
  • RED Point
Reactions: rrc
Funny thing is, this combo would have been just slightly stronger every other bronze thinning combo out there, because it would achieve the same 8 points tempo plus thin a card with a 5 and a 4p card instead of 2 identical 5p cards, but someone out there looked at it and went, "Ehhh, this is a bit weak. Let's also give it a Guardian!" I mean, holy smokes.
Yeah, my point exactly. The Guardian makes it too much. Remove that and it's fine.
 
No. That would be playing 2 different cards on 2 different turns with 2 different and individually strong abilities. This is a card COMBO. The very existance of the mage assassin is for this combo otherwise it would be a useless card. These cards on their own are almost useless but when you put them together as a combo they should be strong.
Though as i said, i agree this is too strong.
If you use both you do end up with 11 for 9, on 2 cards.
As I stated the fact that you access 4p that would have ended up in your deck anways should also make clear why I disagree with 11 for 9.


Regardless, let us assume that this evaluation (I disagree with) were to be true, in this case it would still be 4 points/provisions more efficient than the other thinning packages.
Points/Provisions effective Blightmaker + Mage Assassin is equal to all Thinning bronzes being buffed with 4->5 base strength and 5->4 provisions.
 
That is not true though. Affan most definitely has a large opportunity cost, given that you have to run an 8p card you cannot draw.
Also Mahakam Volunteers is an 8 for 6 that thins a 4p card, you are forced to invest 2 upgrade provisions to run that package in the first place (the fact that you do not have draw the other card does not mean you do not have to invest those provisions, in fact you are also required not to draw that card, so Draconifors is right in that regard).
If anything this only makes Blightmaker comparatively less balanced though, given that the card one has to run does not even cost any additional provisions.
I see it as two separate statistics. Yes, there is a provision cost that you spend during deckbuilding, but that's not the same as value-to-provision calculation during the actual match.
 
So with this math formula. Roderick to Joachim to Usurper is
Points: -2 + (-4) + (6+8+3+3) =14
Provisions: 6+10+12=28
Thinning 2.
It's 5 for 11 but I don't mind it or find it annoying. You need to spec 2 x 4p cards that could otherwise could have been something else you needed
 
Top Bottom