Frostbone Naga and Gnasher, both need a Redsign where they cost 3 Mana, not 4, so they aren't in competition with Blistering Skorn post Patch! (EDIT: Nightsorrow Assassin should also be adjusted to 2/3 in comparison to these suggestions for balance.)


#1

SECOND EDITED PROPOSAL: Frostbone Naga and Gnasher both need re-designs in compensation for the changes to Blistering Skorn which occupies the same 4 Mana cost slot, creating an obvious illusion of choice.

(A second round of edits focused on adjusting both Gnasher and Frostbone Naga have been implemented, making both a bit more fair/easy to deal with during early plays over the course of the first 2 turns.)

Both should cost 3 Mana while having stats adjusted, not 4. As the thread eveolved, a stat-line comparison to Blistering Skorn was suggested by @paralykeet, later this evolved into multiple suggestions for tweaks due to the first two turns needing time for players to utilize their hands, After reviewing many suggestions, I’ve decided to leave things like so, With

FROSTBONE NAGA
COST: 3 Mana,
STATS:2/3,
OPENING GAMBIT: Deals 2 Damage to all adjacent Minions Generals, Including itselt

(Changed to be similar to Blistering Skorn, in that now you aren’t left with a powerful 3/3 after it procs.)

GNASHER
COST: 3 Mana,
STATS:2/3,
DYING WISH: Deals 3 Damage to all adjacent Enemies.

(@eternamemoria made mention o changing Gnasher to a 2/3. While I initially liked the idea of Gnasher being a glass cannon. At 2/3, Inner Focus can’t lead to an immediate 6 face damage to the opponent’s General on the 1st or 2nd turn (on top of also possibly killing minions in the process). The opponent can respond by trading minions to eliminate him quickly while maneuvering out of his way after he’s played. And any spells that can sacrifice him to proc his ability (IE: Darkfire Sacrifice, and Consuming Rebirth for example) destroy him outright either way.)

NIGHTSORROW ASSASSIN
COST: 3 Mana,
STATS:2/3,
OPENING GAMBIT: Destroy a nearby Enemy Minion with 2 or less Attack.

(EDITED: Nightsorrow is now included in this thread, in order to really run the gamut of these types of creatures in balance with each other. I have her Buffed to 2/3, to make it balanced against Frostbone Naga and Gnasher. Since it only destroys one reletively weak creature, at least it leaves a toughish body on the field. Whereas, Naga is now weakened to 2/1 after being played, and Gnasher of course still has to die to proc. The more I thought this out, the more I realized all four should really be in balance.

BLISTERING SKORN (CURRENT STATS/COST POST PATCH)
COST: 4 Mana,
STATS:4/5,
OPENING GAMBIT: Deals 1 Damage to all Minions and Both Generals, including itself.

REASONING: Even at 4 Mana, Blistering Skorn is a more universal AOE over both Frostbone Naga and Gnasher, and he leaves a body on the field after it taking effect which can take a hit while becoming an obvious threat. Now that Skorn is in the 4 slot rather than the 3 slot, Frostbone Naga, and especially Gnasher whom is hard to pull off as it is, simply can’t compete with Skorn, at competitive levels.

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH GNASHER VIA EXTENSIVE TESTING AT DIAMOND RANK:

Even with Lurking Fear in an Abyssian deck, Gnasher is hard to justify. He becomes decent when in tandem combination with Darkfire Sacrifice or Consuming Rebirth, but it’s rarely fast enough even at that point, since you either had to spend a lurking fear first turn if you’re lucky to get him out on turn 2 when going first, or you need to spend several cards to cast him on turn 1 when going second. Plus that only only gets him into a decent range for one faction.

Yes he is decent with short range AOE with 3 damage and fairly nice stats, but you very rarely get to play him in time to hard counter much of anything due to this cost.

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH PLAYING FROSTBONE NAGA AT DIAMOND RANK:

Frostbone Naga is a bit more straightforward, and is another 3/3 body like Gnasher who can take a hit. Skorn obviously has better stats than both Nada and Gnasher at the same cost to start. But I also think Frostbone Naga is again over costed by comparison, since 1 damage on every tile is far stronger than 2 damage to all nearby tiles. He takes immediate effect like Skorn, but this is far, or at least it would be if she costed 3 instead of 4, for all of the same mana curve reasons listed for Gnasher.

EDITED CONCLUSION:

While the thread below opens a dialog to discuss power Vs mana curve, people started to reply with general thoughts on redesigns at a stat-line level if the point costs were lowered, in order to preserve game balance. I’m completely for those suggestions, and will continue to update the original post if general consensus leads me to think even more adjustments would be a good idea.

Gnasher has the biggest potential payoff for damage, but takes planning and resources, and Naga would work great as a hard counter to stock 2 drops like Ooz, Gro, Windblade Adept, Chakri Avatar, Tusk Boar, Bur, Crystal Cloaker, etc. But both of them are just too slow, making the wait for Skorn easy to accept, and putting them into direct competition with Skorn for the 4 slot…giving the illusion of choice.

I know I’m not an S-Rank player, but I take competitive play seriously, and I’d like to see more cards having greater flexibility in the meta.


#2

They would both be way too good for costing 3 mana, there’s nothing to discuss.


#3

@raqyee

I wholeheartedly disagree. They are as is, fundamentally worse than Skorn at 4 with his buffed stats, AND they would still be far more limited in power than Skorn was at 3.

If anything it would give most decks better counters to extremely strong 2 drops listed above if you bothered to read my whole post.


#4

Disagree all you want but you’re factually incorrect. Naga and Gnasher costing 3 mana would make them too strong, regardless of Skorn’s existence.

Buffing underplayed cards is fine, but overbuffing them with an excuse of diversifying minions in the mana department is wrong. It’s like trying to buff Veteran Silithar because it’s a bad 4 drop in a faction full of 4 drops by lowering it’s cost to 3 and making it broken rather than just improving it properly by giving it a different statline for the same cost.


#5

To be clear, are you suggesting just a cost reduction for Naga & Gnasher without any further changes?


#6

@raqyee

I don’t think they would be all that strong. They are limited in range, Skorn could kill everything.

The reality is it’s an illusion of choice. 19 times out 20 you would take Skorn over either of the other too. In games like this I’d much rather have options and variety than illusions of choice where you only pick the card which is inherently better. A lowered cost for both would give people far more options.

I play Abyssian almost exclusively, and I know this would hit swarm a bit, but why would you play with either card as they stand right now? Why should they exist if they aren’t a viable option almost ever (and since they probably only work in complimentary application with cards like Skorn, not a primary AOE.)


#7

Think all you want, but again, you’re factually incorrect.


#8

@thematsjo

Yes, no other changes. They would both be weaker than Skorn was when he costed 3, and this would give you a reason to play either Vs Skorn as they all cost 4 ATM.


#9

@raqyee Can you give examples as to why this would be a disaster?

Skorn, again was FAR stronger at that price point.


#10

@raqyee if you have suggestions as to how the stats should change that’s fine as well.

I would be fine with both cards having slightly lower stats at that price, as long they actually scaled damage the same with their ability procs.

If you feel 3/3 is too strong, fine, but again Skorn is now stronger, can take more hits, and still is better than both by a long ways, creating an illusion of choice rather than freeing up creativity.


#11

I don’t think anything I can say will change your mind. I also don’t think you made the thread to get other’s opinions anyway seeing as you’re so confidently saying how they “should” be changed. So yeah, sorry. I don’t plan to indulge in this discussion any longer as I don’t see it producing anything of quality.


#12

@raqyee

That’s a bit of an unnecessary dig. I’m making a suggestion after putting some thought into this. I’m not demanding anything, I’m just putting my thoughts out there. This is the suggestion forum for a reason. It’s where you make suggestions.

I took the time to reply to your thoughts on changing/redesigns, because I’m open to that, but instead of answering me with real ideas in turn, you’re being plain old rude and dismissive.

It’s fine if you’re a higher ranked player, or whatever. I’m saying these cards create an illusion of choice. That is a fact.


#13

The difference between being costed at 3 and 4 is huge though, Maw is a 2 mana 2/2 for a fraction of Naga’s effect. Does +1 mana = +1/+1 +1damage +Aoe? You can argue that Naga also harms your own stuff, but it also harms the enemy general so I think it cancels out. I’m open to the idea of reducing their costs, but I do think we’d need to see some nerf to them to compensate. Skorn was (kinda sorta) nerfed because its effect was too strong for that stage of each match, I think the same would go for Grincher and especially Gnasher. Gnasher is angling for some kind of Death Wish deck and Naga is sufficiently different from Skorn to fulfill a purpose better than Skorn does; at least potentially.

My two cents.


#14

@thematsjo

I would be fine with that. Maybe 1 damage all around for Naga, and 2 for Gnasher? Maybe a stat line change. I don’t know man, what would you tweak? I’m open to editing the original post to fairly reflect stats changing to be fair.

I don’t want this to be a thing where people aren’t talking about options to make this suggestion better. Nor do I want to be rude or dismissive to people. This is about getting away from illusions of choice.


#15

Going to pass on this one, unless they became 2/3s or 3/2s. As a primarily Vet player, the idea of a smaller spell with legs like Naga is super exciting for Nimbus enablers, but they’re both decent spells on legs, so having full bodies to push that even further is a bit too much. Gnasher would make a cool 3/2, Naga would make a cool 2/3.


#16

@paralykeet

I would be FINE with editing the original post to reflect those state changes. I would maybe even be fine with them doing less damage, though I do like that it scales from 1 dmg with Skorn, 2 dmg with Naga, and 3 dmg with Gnasher for a scaling effect.


#17

I’ll bet Magmar players would appreciate a 1-mana Gnasher-bomb with Flash Reincarnation too :stuck_out_tongue:.


#18

Taygete bomb costs 1 more mana, deals 1 less instant damage and leaves a body that can potentially cause damage again. Seems OKish.


#19

Uh oh, Magmar got a worse way to proc a Grasp while burning up their hand and reducing the other units that can Flash out over the course of the game. Given how often this puts off Flash Warbeast, (and if not, melts 4 cards from the opponent’s hand rather quickly,) I wouldn’t be scared of this in the least.


#20

@paralykeet @thematsjo @raqyee @eternamemoria

I like all these thoughts.

I’m going to edit the top for Frostbone Naga to be re-stated to 2/3, and Gnasher to restated to 3/2.

Should the damage they each deal be adjusted too, or is it OK to have DMG VS ABILITY scale like this?

FROSTBONE NAGA
COST: 3 Mana,
STATS:2/3,
OPENING GAMBIT: Deals 2 Damage to all adjacent Minions Generals,
***NOTE: Naga should possibly the deal damage to itself like Blistering Skorn as well…this should be discussed.

GNASHER
COST: 3 Mana,
STATS:3/2,
DYING WISH: Deals 3 Damage to all adjacent Enemies.

BLISTERING SKORN (CURRENT STATS/COST POST PATCH)
COST: 4 Mana,
STATS:4/5,
OPENING GAMBIT: Deals 1 Damage to all Minions and Both Generals, including itself.