Yes, or just nerf one card instead of potentially messing up a 20+ minion pool.
Blue Conjurer Nerf Idea
I like it! high risk, high reward, and you also remove the ridiculous draw buff. @baharoth, the fact that you think this kind of nerf would “remove” BC from the game just speaks volumes about how ridiculously OP it is right now.
This game has seen some broken things and in my opinion Blue Conjurer is pretty tame in comparison. I understand the card can be frustrating to play against, but when losing to Vanar, I have never thought to myself “Gee, I would have won if it weren’t for that lucky Blue Conjurer”. Arcanysts are very snowball-y in nature and Conjurer only adds to that, but usually it’s too slow to turn the tide when you are losing.
2 Likes
The fact that this change would turn the card into complete garbage has nothing to do with how strong it is now. Spending cards and mana for a worse Aethermaster effect isn’t worth a deck slot. Card advantage is the main reason the card is used to begin with, if you take that away and replace it with a stupid gambling effect then there is no reason to run him.
If the card should be nerfed, and imo thats a big if, then they should just limit the card pool he can draw from, like only Arcanysts with manacost 3 or less to prevent him from drawing high mana value bombs. The game has enough useless crap cards already, we don’t need more of that.
1 Like
A 6/6 body and an ability to transform your Prismatic Illusion or whatever into a Calligrapher or a Death Knell seems good to me. Yes, it’s techy and situational, but guess what - not all Arcanysts need to be the universal powerhouses that Arcanyst Faie got used to. And the fact that a 6/6 body that pulls random Arcanysts for free every time you play a spell - any spell - is used primarily for the card advantage once again speaks volume about how ridiculously OP certain Arcanysts are.
The last time i checked Conjurer was a 4/6 not a 6/6. Yes if your hand is full of illusions then this card might be useful, but in pretty much every other situation it’s not. As long as there is a single decent Arcanyst in your hand your basically not allowed to play spells since it might turn your Owlbeast or Trinity wing into a Sunseer. If you honestly believe a card like this would see any play then i don’t even know what to tell you.
A lot of cards are op and that’s the point. If you want to have a balanced game you need a lot of overpowered cards. Besides players that play ranked only use strong, no the strongest cards available to them.
Yeah, 4/6, that was a typo, sorry (trying to play and write simultaneously is not a good idea).
As for the rest, well, are you familiar with the term risk/reward? Because that’s exactly what it is. And the fact that this new BC would synergise better with a hand full of cheap spells and token minions would just make it more situational. That’s all.
And if this new BC, with a decent body and a decent yet risky/situational ability seems so useless to you, well, once again - and I’m really tired of this - it just speaks volumes about how OP the Arcanysts currently are.
I think Vanar spells are the problem. In my knowledge Abyssian or Songhai decks playing Arcanysts didn’t exactly rule the ladder. Their removal spells just don’t dispel, ramp or draw them cards while being cheap as chips to cast.
Er, no, you don’t? Besides, when about 50% of those silly OP cards end up in one faction there’s something wrong with the game.
(And I’ve no idea what you meant by players only using strong cards, sorry.)
Arcanyst Lilithe is also quite strong. But yeah, sure, Van with their ridiculous cheap spells (I mean, how is Aspect of the Fox still 1 mana?) is the best faction for Arcanysts, so if you want to run an Arcanyst list, you’ll probably go for Van.
While I agree with your overall tone, using Gauntlet as a argument point has never been relevant to any topic regarding game balance considering their history of complete disregard of the mode as far as balance is concerned.
Yes i know the term risk/reward but just because something has a risk/reward ratio it’s not automatically a good thing. Russian roulette with a 1 million dollar price money for the last guy standing is also risk/reward but would you do that?
This change is more than just situational, a situational card is a card that only gets good value under specific circumstances and little to no value in others. With this change however you would have a card that can be detrimetal to your gameplay to the point of making you want to not play cards at all for fear of hurting yourself with it.
If you want to rank up and aren’t just playing meme decks you need to play strong cards as well as strong decks. Isn’t it obvious? BC is a strong card and fits very well in almost any arcanyst deck. Is that really such a big problem? I don’t like nerfing or changing good and fun cards when it is not necessary.
It’s an absurd example and its link to the subject is tenuous at best; I don’t know what to tell you. After @elPatoPoderoso’s nerf Blue Conjurer could would, in certain circumstances, transform your shitty token minion into a Calligrapher; in others, it could transform your good card into a worse card, which 1) can be prevented by playing this good card before you drop the BC, 2) is hardly a cause for auto-concede (or a suicide, if we were to try and somehow refer to your Russian Roulette example).
And it’s not like it’d be something completely new for Duelyst to have your own tools potentially turn against you. From Panddos being used to body block to battle pets attacking Spectral Revs, from Dominate Will swinging the game to Hamon finishing off your own general, it’s not totally unusual - although not very common either - for your own combos/strategies to actively bring you down rather than just fail as in “generate almost no value”. That’s what risk/reward is about.
Ah, alright, you missed a comma there and I read it as “strong, not the strongest” and thought it was kinda odd. Well, top players tend to choose the best “strategies” rather than just throw in all the best “cards” they can think of. And the more ridiculously OP cards you have, the less variety there is.
Besides, if I thought BC was “good and fun”, I’d also oppose any nerf attempts. But the whole point of this discussion is that many people don’t consider this card “fun”. “Strong” doesn’t make the cards “fun”, not necessarily.
1 Like
I’ve picked an extreme example on purpose because you seem to think that any kind of risk/reward ratio is a good thing and that’s not the case.
You should read up a little on game and decision theory and how risk/rewards effect peoples decisions, maybe that would allow you to see why nobody in his right mind would play a card like that.
Your opponent using your cards against you is a completely different thing than having a card that actively hurts you without the opponent even doing anything.
Hamon trading 2 life a turn for an overstated minion that forces an answer from your opponent is one thing, not being able to play spells because it can mess up your hand is another. It would mean that BC won’t hit board in 9 out of 10 games because you still have other Arcanysts in hand that you want to play before that. That BC Version in an Arcanyst deck is more akin to playing Night Watcher in Obelysk Vet.
1 Like
Your whole point is that “risk/reward in this particular case is not good”. Which might very well be the case, but instead of providing some sensible argument you just start behaving like an arrogant toddler. “Read up”? Mate, I have some actual academic background in game theory (although, admittedly, just a bit); do you?
If you want to discuss this particular card, in the context of this particular game, let’s. If you just want some space to do your best look-at-me-I’ve-read-game-theory impression, be my guest, but I’m not going to participate.
And no, in principle Hamon and this version of BC are not different at all. Both come with an active flaw, a downside that does not require your opponent’s input to bring you down. One has the potential to mess up your hand a bit, the other whittles down your hp - the only difference being the type of resource they affect. Do you want to (potentially) lose 2hp for the next few rounds or do you want to (potentially) mess up your hand by replacing a wrong card into another wrong card? Both are legit choices, and legit strategies; both require a specific deck to be build around them, in order to generate max value and diminish the chance of “failing”. Your “9 out of 10 games” is pure speculation, so, once again, I’ve no idea what to tell you here.
Then i honestly can’t understand how you can argue for a card like this to be playable. Even from a simple “Would i play the card in my Arcanyst deck” point of view the answer should be obvious.
Regarding the “arrogant toddler”, what kind of response did you expect asking a question like that?
Well, it was a reaction to this:
Anyway, sorry for escalating. I think it’s time to wrap things up. I don’t play Arcanyst - not because I think they’re overrated or anything, I just don’t like the out-of-hand, burst-ish playstyle they require.
I wouldn’t mind seeing BC nerfed to the point of unplayability, or removed from the game completely. I genuinely hate its design. This kind of nerf seems to me like a sensible rework, probably relegating it to a very niche, very situational, very techy card. To me, it seems preferable to leaving it as an Arcanyst staple. But it’s not like it’s the only nerf idea I can think of.
1 Like