DeathsAdvocates Fan Made Balance Patch


False. It should be Blood Surge: Cast your BBS.


The winner is here! :trophy:


of course how could we have been so blind, definately the best option. :sweat:


If the idea of Vespyrian Might being changed to draw from deck instead of from all Vespyrs go through, not so much of a problem.



Vespyrian might - give a vedpyr +2/+2 for every othe vespyr on board.

Howling is ok but noe crazy like 11/10 snowchaser going all booty bandit on you


For reasons my brain froze and mixed it with Vespyrian Call, lel.


I mean, that’d be fine too. There’s no reason magmar needs board agnostic burst with current arsenal of cards he has access to.


Coming after my abilities, or my misplays in a single game rather then the arguments themselves is exactly the definition of a straw man argument and a personal attack. And you are continuing to do so. But I do appreciate you are at least including good tips this time.

Regarding your tips, those are all things I usually do, and if you watch the Vod I even mention near all of those as that is normally how I go about things. I chose to deviate from them due to a few special circumstances, that mixed with the fact that I was also just playing sloppy that game, and my opponent getting exceptional draws is what cost me the game. But none of that is indicative of my knowledge or abilities. Nor do your or my abilities have much bearing on this debate either way.

Continuing to say “you don’t understand” is not only a personal attack, but also inaccurate. I could just completely rephrase what your saying and throw your name in place of mine and it would still work, but neither of those things are ok. Instead I keep the focus on why I think this is unhealthy and trying to explain why, rather then just dismissing your statements as “wrong”.

Your allowed to disagree with me about whether uncounterable out of hand burst is healthy or fair. And on that note I also take no issue at all with its healing factor. My issue with it is due to its highroll nature and uncounterable burst. Which regardless of any other factors like balance, faction strength, or skill remains true, and is the entire point of my stance as I don’t think that kind of thing belongs in a board game. We differ in opinion here, and that is fine, but coming after me rather then my argument is not ok.

This really gets to me. I hate decispikes as much as the next guy, and while Starhorn is generally stronger right now, Spellhai variants are even more offensive with even less counterplay in regards to this matter. And you yourself just mentioned my exact problem with both of these things “board agnostic burst” aka uncounterable damage in excess that does not use the board, which is my exact problem with both of these, on top of both having a highroll nature.


I came after your argument. “You do not understand the matchup” followed by supporting points which you openly agree with on stream is the definition of an attack on argument which you in turn conceded. This does not mean you are a bad player, nor does it mean that I harbor any animosity towards you. You simply have a blind spot I mean to correct, especially given that you’re waxing design theory in front of a forum filled with relatively newer players.

Regarding decihorn, mantra and decispikes are very different, as songhai can either build a board-based deck or a spell-based one. Magmar can do both and can burst agnostically with two cards for 9, or 18 with 3 all while possessing superior removal, minions, and heal, often in the same deck. As for burst ceiling and consistency, please don’t make me spell out how holding and replacing to sculpt a 3-7 card combo from turn one is different from “Hey I drew decimus on 7, looks like I win with 9 + board” while already being ahead. Also, the idea that a two card combo is less interactive and consistent than one requiring 3-7 cards is a mathematical impossibility. And don’t get me started on the fact that you’re hardly penalized in the deckbuilding phase. You get to play midrange mag with a 9-18 dmg combo at the cost of like 6 cards.

Again, please look over the spell suite and cards songhai has access to. You’re overestimating both highroll and burst in many situations because you aren’t adding up how much they can do based on how much mana they have (I concede that abjudicator is broken).


I want to stress that again. Same is valid for burn Faie who doesn’t have as much of immediate burst, but does not burn less health throughout the match than Starhorn. I believe it may make one think that both decks are board based while they are not.


Better late then never, here we go.


Rokadoptera - cost to 2, Boulder Hurl to 1, easiest change IMO. I don’t see him as a big problem.

Blue Conjurer - if you want random Arcanysts instead of cards from your deck - I kinda don’t care. You still have to pay for whatever minions drawn.

Decimus - whatever, this card is lame. You can delete it from the game.

Grimes - come on, this is a rare fun random card. I had some fun playing him and I don’t mind my opponent high rolling with him. Leave the meme be.

Shidai - I’d consider this a buff actually, I’m for it.

Geomancer - don’t see him as a problem. It’s hard to find a moment for playing him (others have already outlined that). At the very least you should make him an exact copy of Cloudcaller (4/5 + refresh).

Mantra - I’d much rather directly change it than all the other spells.

Oak in the Nemeton - this particular Trial is the most strategic and board-oriented of all (as was already outlined by other players). Your opponent can actually stop you from completing it, and that is probably the reason why it’s one of the weakest. Weird to see a suggestion to move away from that.

Healyonar - personally I wouldn’t mind it being nerfed to an unplayable state. Changing just 3 cards is not enough (more on that later).

Magmar - I don’t even know what to say here. No Rebuke nerf, and if you think that Grow needs any buff, you’re crazy. Watch Scarzig’s stream where he reviewed your post (despite some harsh comments he gives you due respect), there he played a Grow deck just to show how strong it is. Some time before that he had also played a Grow deck suggested by one of the viewers, which was even stronger.


Revenant - keep him as is.

Desolator - same. I don’t understand all the complaints around him, especially now - he’s not a game-winning card as some put him - but he doesn’t really need a buff either. I play him not for his stats anyway.

Variax - while I really don’t like saying that, but Variax can be compared to Wanderer - you drop her and then slowly overwhelm your opponent with value. Problem is not that she’s slower than Wanderer/Fault/whatever, problem is that those other are too fast (more on that later).

Crescendo - don’t see a reason for change.

Soulshatter Pact - don’t see a reason for change. Currently it can be seen as a Chakram substitution, not played anyway. Arcanyst support is whatever (more on that later).

Bloodtide Priestess - brings her close to Sunriser level of broken. I do agree that currently she’s weak, but she also falls under that polarizing type of cards IMO. She can easily be answered now, but if you change that, soon you’ll see how broken her effect is.
If you somehow limit her Wraithling generation, though - that is another thing.

Skull Prophet - now that is broken and an almost guaranteed staple, especially in aggro/control Cass decks. I’m sure someone had already said this, but this change effectively means “enemy General can’t attack”, whether her effect is already triggered or not.

Nightshroud - again, Arcanyst support is whatever.

Hexclaw - price is what matters, IMO.

Doom - leave the memes be. Also I’m somewhat sure 2 turns will be too little.

I think you should separate your ideas into 2 parts - balance changes and core changes. In the first group you should put things that are relatively easy to make and revolve around card adjustments. In the second - the more complex and more unlikely things that will change how decks or the game itself work.
I think, it will help to avoid some unnecessary arguments over things that probably will never get changed, but at the same time will help to better review things that may.

Now, some thoughts on balance from me.

More changes

Healyonar - I’m not opposed to healing itself as a mechanic, or to decks built around it (though it is annoying at times), but the problem is that Healyonar is a burn/aggro theme which just happens to have the best healing. Damaging part of all their tools should be cut.

Khault - instead of nerfing Kha/Fault/Rae, I suggest to take a look at the real core of the problem - Exhuming Sand. The value that tile is able to generate surpasses even Hallowed Ground, while the latter is already known to be doing too much.
I don’t have any particular idea - make them timed (disappearing after some amount of turns), lower the amount of times they can trigger, make summoned minions be non-Dervish 1/1s, but some change is required.

Arcanysts - I don’t like Owlbeast and I don’t like the fact that the whole theme relies on him for board presence, while Owlbest can be ran in any spell-heavy deck without additional synergy. He should be nerfed and Arcanysts as a whole should get some other tools (or at least some buffs) to underline their theme and synergies.
Because of that, I don’t see any particular value in small adjustments you suggested - it will still be the same boring Owlpunch.

Trials - I don’t like them as a whole. Most of all, I don’t like the fact how they shift lategame by at least 1 mana down. If, say, Songhai Interactive wins by 7-8 mana or 5-6 with some luck, Wanderer drops the wincon strictly on 6 or on 4-5 with some luck.
Furthermore, they are uninteractive by nature - you just play your cards until complete, with occasional removal/kiting.

Outright removal or significant rework of Trial/Destiny and Build are top priority core changes for me.

Another problematic card I want to name is EMP. Be he even a 3/3, as long as this card exists, all board-reliant gameplay is basically screwed. His effect should be completely removed (preferably) or at least put to 8-9 mana. Stats are secondary, but should be low enough to avoid inclusion just for them.

Finally, an example of how you can make staple cards thematic.
Holy Immolation - 3 mana
The first time you cast BBS on this minion, give an opposite effect to all nearby enemies.
First, this means that you need your BBS to actually get the effect. Second, if for Ziran it will be heal for 3 / damage for 3, for Argeon it will be give +2 attack / -2 attack, and Brome is out of luck. So, some decks wouldn’t run the card at all, and some still will, but with other purposes. It’s not a nobrainer inclusion anymore.


Will it summon 2/1 with infiltrate:Flying at the back of an opponent?


I have grown quite fatigued from trying to explain my side. I keep asking for alternative suggestions but mostly I have been getting disagreements. Which is fine when they are polite and or constructive, but exhausting when they are agressive, circular, or ignore my basic fundamentals.

Rock: one of the biggest gates/mantra abuse enablers and generally a bad card outside of that. Core fundamental: Make things strong, remove highroll/uncounterable factors. Avoid true nerfs.

Cojuerer: I don’t quite understand what your saying, but I like the thought of drawing from your deck.

Grimes is probably fine, perhaps I should leave it alone, it is just almost compeitive and has a lot of highroll potential in my dream world this is not a thing, but as others have pointed out we don’t want to alienate the casual audience or make things to predictable.

Geo: by its self is not the issue, it’s the redundancy. If it stays some other face source needs to go, I am open as to what.

Mantra/Gates: As long as they are not abuseable they should be fine, more importantly I want the excess of face burn/burst to be addressed more then the combo aspect.

Oak: Good points, but it is currently to weak, but we don’t want it to become to strong or polarizing either so I don’t know what to do.

Healnar: Fundamental: Avoiding most true nerfs. Deck should be strong, just shouldent be a polarizing burn deck.

Magmar: I will staunchly defend their removal package forever. It is linear, it has counterplay, and mag is supposed to be the control faction. Fundamental: Avoidng most true nerfs. I did sideways nerf it by adding a good handful of things resistant to their removal package sprinkled throughout my patch. Grow can do well but has so many ways to shut it down I just don’t think it can be a problem, and even scarzig does not play it up into like the top fifty. Most people think it’s weak, and even if it did get to strong there are so many ways to check it it’s fine, it’s underplayed so I gave the lesser played parts of it a nudge.

Abyssian: Fundamental: Removing polarizing aspects. Swarm needs to be stronger but less hyper.

My bias may be showing on buffs. Variax is nothing like wanderer, it’s lategame, does not win right away, and it’s a slow control board based tactic vulnerable to removal and dispel so I do not see why people think it is unhealthy. And Priestess is my all time favorite card, it requires set up to be good, and even at 4 health plenty kills it, and I also included lots of new tools to do so, but again I may be biased, but I think abyss and swarm needs strong stuff like this and the others.

Other changes: I am not fundamentally against trials, but am very open to reworking a lot of them.

Targeting Sand tiles is interesting. It seems drastic, but I am listening.

The rest strictly goes against my core fundamentals of: Factions should have strong staples, avoiding true nerfs as much as possible, and more importantly the issues you take are with things that tend to be important checks and balances to other things.


I’m sad to hear that. Although we have some disagreements, I share for example your view of swarm Abyss, I never said that cause it’s natural to humans(as I know them) to have more attention to negative things.

That said, I admire the amount of time and thought you put into this list. Please don’t be discouraged by mixed reception, it’s predictable.


As much as even i adore a good meme, i can’t exactly leave it be in the very sense i can’t exactly respect the levels of both high and low rolls this ensues. At the moment if you wanna keep it so random the only limit i’ll ask is to give it some level of certainty, like… Tribal cards that costs specifically 2. Too many ‘core set pieces that relies on synergy’ on 3, too many Gates of the Undervault at 4, cost/power ratio starts getting weird at 5+, and obviously get too weak at 1-.


(I actually edited that out. Surprised you had time to quote it with how quick I corrected it. I am fatigued so I will do it less/probably ignore or be very slow to respond to the more agressive frustrating ones. But saying I am done was unfair)


I’m really glad that there are members of the Duelyst community like you, with the will and capacity of making analysis and starting conversations like this, always keeping a pleasant tone and without a passive-aggressive attitude in the writing.
Nobody should feel discouraged by the tone of other members, no matter how strong can be their opinion, and no matter their experience in the game, because there’s room for EVERYONE to learn from the game, other’s opinions, and to be better members of this community. Keep it up!


Couple of points first.
If Boulder Hurl cost 1 mana, it would be hardly a larger Mantra enabler than Shidai’s BBS. It would still enable 8 Gates, but I don’t even see it that often.
I don’t see how Variax is vulnerable to removal and dispel - 1 turn cooldown, effect is undispellable.

I understand how you can get tired of arguing on the same topic over and over. However, I would say this topic largely goes in a constructive and respective manner, and you should not feel discouraged. Instead, I’d suggest you find some common points with others and try to work on that.

Nerfs are not necessary making cards bad. I aim them to fix what’s broken. You can’t fix everything by making strictly positive changes. And you shouldn’t be so focused on staples - they are not a static thing, they come and go, adapting and evolving with the game. Taking one out doesn’t mean you can’t put back another. But limiting one card often means you allow many others to be stronger.

I do think that I’m suggesting some alternatives, but you just don’t like them. That doesn’t mean that I do nothing but criticize. One thing I want to suggest is to take a look at the following cards. They are not necessary game breaking or polarizing, but they clearly stand out as providing too much value for their cost.
Terradon - 10 points of stats for 3 mana. Haruspex - 13 points of stats for 4 mana + synergy with Deci and potential for burning cards.
Lavalance - 4:1 damage:mana ratio, Lucent Beam - 2:1 ratio. Higher than one of the best damage spells in the game - Phoenix Fire (3:2).
Holy Immolation - 2:1 health swing:mana ratio minimum, Sunstrike - 3:2 ratio minimum, Circle of Life - 2:1 ratio. All the while Desolator provides only 1:1 ratio and already got nerfed.
Exhuming Sand (which I already named) - comparing to Zirix’s BBS, that’s 1 mana of value per turn per tile. Fault almost completely returns its cost in one trigger.
Blood of Air - 5 mana hard removal is fine, but it transforms while Dark Transformation just kills, it provides a minion with higher stats, and that minion is also able to move and attack the same turn, potentially removing something else.


The wraithlings/variax are vulnerable. I take no issue with a lategame snowball effect that is slow and uses the board. But again this may be my bias, but even during ROTB I enjoyed both playing as and against it.

Rok is already weak, lets not make him worse, yet keep his problematic features.

Sorry I should have specified a bit. You have generally been constructive and respectful, although certainly not everyone has. Some of your suggestions are great, but a good chunk of them have have been ignoring the fundamentals I am adamant about, debating the fundamentals themselve is one thing but I am a bit tired of doing that, but ignoring them and positing suggestions that contradict them is frustrating. Most of the things you seem to want to target already have tons of counterplay built in and as long as you play around them they just are not problematic in my book.

Other then those I am really open to any ideas or adjustments. I also do absolutely think you can largely fix things with mostly positive changes. And other then targeting Exhuming sand which I do find interesting, your new batch again goes agaisnt my core fundamentals.

Like it or not this is what the whole game is balanced around, and its a fun, flashy, wild ride if you accept it. The game has loads of answers, and lots of must answer cards. As long as something can be answered/has counterplay/uses the board it tends to be ok in my book.

The other issue with many of your proposed nerfs is many of these things check and balance other things. Hitting one lets something else run rampant. Plus nerfs almost always result in an infinite cycle of the next best thing replaces them, never actually improving the design/game health but just creating a rotating meta of broken.


As much as nerfs may lead to other broken things rotating in, buffs may create new broken things which will make older ones rotating out. I don’t see this being any better. I prefer nerfs because they slow down this sort of arms race, allowing more space for strategic part. Buffing something to the current level of broken speeds everything up and leads to faster, more draw-dependent games and promotes topdecking.

Once again, I suggest you separate your patch into 2 parts.

Decimus, Wanderer, Khault - these are some common points most of players agree on and can provide their versions of adjustments. Something we all can work on and try to push into the game. This is one part.

But if you think that, say, Rebuke is balanced, that it’s not an issue even though it covers the little weak spot Magmar had in removal, that it should be defended for sole reason that it became a staple - I can not agree with you here nor can I provide any suggestion which you would find acceptable. The only thing I can is to explain why I fundamentally disagree. This is another part.

Find a common ground, work on that, and it will save you a lot of frustration.

For now, I will stop making any other suggestions, but if you want me to continue on something I have said before - just tell what that is.