Why was siphon nerfed, but chromatic cold kept the same?


#1

Short Version:

[details=Summary]1.)Siphon nerf was weird and chromatic cold should’ve also had something done to it.
2.) Suggestions for changes in bottom hidden detail
3.) I demand that answers CP! Or is this just another one of your devilish plans? :scream:
[/details]

Now I know that it’s been a while since patch 1.74 (for all you who don’t know patch 1.74 it nerfed siphon energy. Just look it up on news) and I’ve had some more time to play with some decks and consequently get wrecked by others. Now don’t misunderstand me, I’m not going to go on an angry rant against “OP” cards or cards that should get super buffed, but I do feel that this is a legitimate focus for discussion. The difference between the effects of siphon and chrome is pretty confusing to me. While I do understand that when that before that patch vetruvian was running rampant all over ladder and that something had to be done I don’t understand the reasoning that CP had for the nerf. “We think forcing Vetruvian to care more about positioning…” If they really did think about how infinite range spells effected the players positioning then why didn’t they look at the spells within vanar, the faction with the one of the most powerful INFINITE RANGE dispels out there? If one were to take to heart the argument behind positioning then they would do something about chromatic cold. It dispels the space therefore bypassing any spell immunity while getting rid of any negative tile effect, it deals damage, and it can be used on ANY part of the board from ANY position. Now i understand that an argument can be made using siphons zero mana cost as its basis and it would be a pretty good argument, but the point of the discussion is the reason why CP would leave something that has nigh identical issues within the game. The only answer that I can foresee is if they decide to change the effect of the card,but in doing so they would unleash a whole new set of headaches in the changes that they’d need to make in order to make it playable. I’ll make a little detail on the bottom for anyone interested in those. All I really want is a reasonable answer, please CP?

Changes:

[details=Summary]1.) Make chromatic cold only available on one side of the board. I know that this would make it really hard to play it, but something needs to change (either that or take away its ability to do 2 damage
2.) Give Vanar more board movement cards. Hearth sister and lightning blitz are both wonderful cards, but vanar needs options that can move all minions to one side of the board.
Ex: Snowstorm 4 mana move ALL minions to your side of the board randomly.
That’s just hypothetical, but Vanar really could use some more movement options.[/details]


Cards I think deserve a nerf
#2

I don’t think that the two cards are related enough such that a comparison can be made. This was a design choice moreso than a balance one I believe, and is largely concerned with cards being printed in the future. Vetruvian has some very strong effects such as Falcius- a card that is extremely powerful and yet requires your general to be nearby a relevant target for proper impact. With Vetruvian’s lack of ranged removal cards being established, it is now possible to print certain close range removal cards that would otherwise be insane such as Falcius-like cards going forwards. Vanar is not a class that struggles at ranged removals, and so they are not a class that I expect to get close range removals that are “overpowered” in a vacuum in future expansions.

TL;DR: I believe that this is a design choice that allows CPG to give Vet some removal in the future that would otherwise be overpowered, if not for this ranged weakness. With the ranged weakness existing however, these cards can be fair. With this point in mind I do not find it fair to compare these cards.


#3

At the beginning of the patch notes they said the changes made weren’t necessarily trying to balance things. Siphon Energy is one of those changes. It was a balanced card, BUT, they decided that Vetruvian’s identity should be curbed to become more General centric.

Vanar is a more “Blue” (ala MtG) faction, so Chromatic Cold is more acceptable for them to have, despite how it is unambiguously better than current Siphon Energy in basically every way. Yes it’s better but it’s better in a way that Vanar is meant to be.


#4

@onfulltilt
@huliganjetta
First of all thank you for replying to my post! It’s been a pleasure to read your replies and the arguments that they propose. Now in regards to your arguments, what I can see is that you believe that the changes, although regrettable (I’m at vet main), have more of a thematic backing rather than a balance issue. That is something that I honestly didn’t consider and looking back on it is something that I should have considering the validity of such points. However, if that were really the case then I have to ask why they didn’t limit chrom cold to the key word/theme behind vanar that being of board specific effects. Some cards such as hailstone prison and the walls are spells that need the board limit removed to be effective, but for chromatic cold, wouldn’t it be the same? It is a dispel that also does 2 damage to whatever it dispels (not limited to minions or general). Just as, wailing overdrive, lightning blitz, and the card that reactivates friendly minions on opponents side of the board, shouldn’t cold be limited to one side of the board? It’s power is undeniable and its utility is absurd. 2 mana dispel ANYTHING and deal 2 damage as well? That seems to be ridiculous and if CP tried to implement any other card that dispels and deals damage at the same time then there would be some heavy backlash against it (until a month later when no one cares anymore). I hope that you reply (you probably will and it’ll most likely blow my reasoning out the window:sweat_smile: i look forward to it)


#5

@mmf Ah, glad to hear it mate- a pleasure to see someone considering an opposing point of view!

I personally feel that side/location based cards are more of a subtheme for Vanar rather than a main theme. When I look at all the Vanar cards put together, the main theme that comes to my mind is actually disruption- kind of like an MTG Blue deck. The removal cards in my mind are part of the disruption, in which you’re disrupting the opponent by making it hard for their minions to stick. On the other hand, the side dependent cards play into the disruption theme in a different fashion- they encourage the idea of locking the opponent onto one side of the field. The mere capability to disrupt is not enough to tie together a theme- you also need to have reasons to disrupt and things to gain from it. These side dependent cards in my mind are just that- if you can effectively keep the opponent locked onto one side of the battlefield (disrupting their positioning) then these cards allow you to gain value from the act of disruption. Basically I think that the side based cards are more of a means to an end rather than the focus of a deck by themself, and for that reason I personally do not think existing cards should be made side dependent.

I can definitely understand considering chromatic cold to be crazy, and it somewhat is. Personally I am alright with it however due to how the rest of the faction was built. Vanar does not I believe have many strong early threats (no chakri avatars or azurite lions for instance), and also their in faction ramp and lategame cards are very conditional meaning that they cannot easily JUST remove things to win (they often will have to do something in addition such as play Jax and have parts of it survive). In my mind Vanar’s removal is in fact extremely good, but the faction was purposefully limited in some other areas to make it more acceptable.

All this being said I do understand where you are coming from, and it is a somewhat oppressive card. I do however personally believe that having a good disruption based option is a great thing for a game, even if it can be frustrating to play against.


#6

Thematic balancing seems to be CP’s overarching philosophy to keep factions distinct by being overpowered in their own ways. Case in point being Songhai’s burstiness never really going to be nerfed, or Vet’s consistent nerfs to non-positioning uber cards like the old third wish or siphon energy.

So looking at cards in a vacuum like how you’re describing chromatic cold sounds like it’s just too good, but it balances out with the fact that Vanar doesn’t have really overpowered swingy in-faction minions (like Revenant) despite some tribal synergy, so they’re quite dependent on the hard removals. Yes, they have access to neutral minions, but then so do all other factions.


#7

To be fair, Chromatic cold is a very thematically awkward card and really deserves a nerf. It is more of a faction misfit than siphon energy could ever be and here’s why:

History time! Back in December 2015, Vetruvian combo and Magmar control were dominating the ladder, with almost all of the finalists at tournaments playing combo Vetruvian. Vanar at the time was utter trash. One of the things that pushed Control Magmar was a little card called Mana Burn. That card was:

2 mana
Deal 2 damage to and dispel target space

Sound familiar? It was chromatic cold! In order to make Vanar stronger, Counterplay literally ripped a card out of Magmar and gave it to Vanar. Talk about keeping faction identity! Flash forward a few months and Vanar has found its place in the meta. Vanar decks are functional and Chromatic cold was just icing to the cake. During Shim’Zar, a neat little card called altered beast was introduced, making Vanar clock in at a whopping 4 removal-dispels under 3 mana. Patch 1.7.4 seemed like a perfect time to rework this factional misfit.

No matter which way I look at it, Mana burn- I mean Chromatic cold was an excellent candidate for a rework since Vanar already has several good dispel-removal options.

Don’t misunderstand me; I do not disagree with the siphon change but it seems extremely ironic that people are defending the card that was Litterally cut and pasted from a different faction on the grounds of theming.


#8

I vote for Mana Burn being returned to its rightful place in Magmar Kappa.


#9

I don’t see why the being lifted from another faction part completely erases the theme element. The names of the Magmar and Abyssian factions used to belong to the opposite faction. The names were switched since doing so led to a better thematic fit. In my eyes the mana burn -> chromatic cold change could be a similar situation.


#10

Partially because Vanar now has more, arguably even more flavourful, dispel/removal options under 3 mana. One of the themes of Vanar is Transformations (like the aspect cycle) so they have Altered Beast and Aspect of the Fox. I would wager that it it wasn’t for chromatic cold, altered beast would see a lot more play. It is like a less consistent Thumping wave for 1 less mana that sees no play right now. Other than that, Vanar has Hailstone Prison, which is also a pretty good card. The point I’m trying to make is that Vanar no longer needs chromatic cold. They have other, more flavourful removal cards that see no play at least partially because of Chromatic cold.

Also, brown Vaath was best Vaath.


#11

@excogitator I’m not experienced enough to weigh in on one side or another on balance/changes, but I think it’s a great point that you bring up mate. It certainly is possible that chromatic cold is limiting deck diversity, especially since the damage on general part helps a lot in Faice as well- a highly versatile and strong spell this one is. I feel that when viewed in isolation the general theme of Vanar is one that fits Chromatic cold, but you have some great points about the fact that it likely overshadows other thematic choices.


#12

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.