[BALANCE] Balance Suggestion List (January 2014)

To clarify, I would like to see it disappear from MP because it's luck based and doesn't really contribute in the strategy part of the game. Crazy cards like that are great for SP though because they can produce some fun results.

Some kind of Mass Maze could work (I've suggested it myself earlier) but I think it might nerf the cards too much because it would more or less eliminate the worst possible situations you can get into, which is the only time WW/WWE is really useful. For example if you cannot totally isolate one character, WW/WWE could become pretty pointless.

New functionality yes, but very easy to code. I don't think reducing damage by 50% would make things too complicated. It's a very commonly used concept in games. One other option is to simply cap the damage prevention to something like 8-10.

Penetration not ignoring Toughness is indeed weird and should be regarded as a bug.

Toughness requiring facing is something I'm totally against. It would remove the most unique aspect of the card which would be a shame. I like the fact that Toughness is basically a counter against step warriors who think they are clever because they attack from behind.

I like it because I think Priests having one invulnerability card fits the theme and it gives the player using it some interesting strategy options. It could of course work like Toughness but we already have that. I don't know.. it's not an easy card to fix.

Yes, it would increase trait cycling but it would still be a nerf. Trip is no joke for a step warrior, and that one round of doing nothing will help the opponent a lot. Sure, it could be something else as well, but I think Trip fits the theme very well (you keep jumping around, you will trip). I'd rather had something that made logical sense than just a random weak card.

I don't worry about SP handicap challenges. Those are already easy to complete using any of the current drawback weapons, some of which are not really drawbacks. Adding VP to the mix wouldn't change things too much, especially considering how rare the item is.

 

Resistant Hide can only negate acid damage once because acid destroys it. Avoiding 1 or 3 points of acid damage is usually pretty trivial. In practice it negates fire / electrical on a continuing basis. Still quite good, but only two. And a pretty good armor as well. I like it as designed.

You say that scarcity doesn't matter. I disagree. The weakest class in the game may have one copy of this armor card, and choosing this armor limits the choices of which other cards are available on their robes. Too many wizards wearing Resistant Hide die too often for me to believe it is overpowered. As stated before, it is removable in various manners by all classes. If the card disadvantage of using armor removal is too troubling, I recommend killing such wizards by means other than fire or electricity. It is a very common practice.

Do you have any evidence or data to support this statement?

How many players play MP? SP? Both? How many player-hours on either side? How many players complete the Campaign? How many SP-only players still play after completing the quests? How many move to MP? Which side generates more earnings? (There must be earnings to stay in business.)

I don't know, but I suspect the devs track it in general terms at least.

How many MP players play just for fun, and aren't really concerned about rankings or theoretical fine points of game balance? (I doubt the devs can track this one.)

My take on this: SP is what new players play first and will judge the game by. Therefore, I believe balancing MP to the detriment of SP would be a horrible mistake in terms of attracting and retaining players.

It's good for the game to be balanced, but it's more important for it to be fun.

 

i do 100% agree with stexe on what cards are overpowered and why.
i disagree with some of the nerfs though.
i dont think the problem is that for example nimble strike exists as it is, the poblem is you can build a warrior that carries 15 of them.
infused greatclub is a very good example for a well thought out item: it has two really strong attacks, and the rest are by themselves not more than block pullers.
vibrant pain on the other hand is quite the reverse.
another problem is short perplexing ray:
why would you put this on so many items that have no token cost?
this obviously has to do with the way the items are designed related to the fact how cards are rated.

short perplexing ray: at least gold, probably even with range 2 ( which is the nerf i would also suggest)
dancing cut/nimble strike/vicious thrust: how they all managed to be silver i cannot fathom. nimble is scraping emerald. vicious is borderline to gold. dancing cut is maybe right.
frost jolt: gold
now the blocks are the worst: charging block / hard to pin: hard to pin is not even close to silver, it is exclusively better should at least be gold, borderline emerald ( compared to acrobatic flip for example)
also stuck arrow: the sense in this eludes me, what was the actual thought behind that one? cause missile block is just as cheap
the rolls on most of those need fixing as well.

nimbus: silver? really dont think so, make it gold.
mind worm/ touch of death both a rank lower, most of the priest stuff is not rated right.
also dodge/ jump back: what happened there? dodge is in most cases better
ww/wwe: gold

to cut this a little shorter:
if the rank of those cards would get fixed, some items would just break the system that exists.

so after all: you devs tried your best to stay away from nerfing items, but changing some of them might be your best shot.

 

I think those are safe assumptions.

Toughness cutting damage in half could work, but I was trying to use already existing precedent when coming up with changes. Plus it might be confusing for some players as "does it round up or down?"

Having Imp Nimbus make it so you're unable to attack under its effects doesn't really deal with the issue of victory point camping when combined with Immovable.

As stated before, just because Resistant Hide is only 1 per deck doesn't mean it should be able to be super powerful. Even negating Fire and Acid only would make it still extremely strong in comparison to other armor choices.

Firestorm being range 10 isn't that strange. It would prevent players from using the edge of the map as a free wall when putting up other walls to block themselves in. Range 8 would work too -- again I'm just trying to keep changes as moderate as possible.

Lava tiles removing Cold would be overly complicated and not an elegant solution. Plus, it would just shift the problem to other hazardous terrain types.

And yes, balance is about creating more diverse gameplay. As I stated in my original post I'm working on a similar list for increasing the power of weaker cards... you did read my first post, right? :-P

Just because you "like it as designed" doesn't mean it is balanced though. It is an extremely powerful card for what it is rated. In comparison to other armors it would easily be an Emerald Rare.

No evidence for Card Hunter statistics, but for my experience playing Guild Wars competitively for a while balancing around SP leads to many, many problems. Having something OP in SP only hurts your own experience -- having something OP in MP hurts many people's experience. As to which side generates more earnings it is kind of irrelevant to the discussion of balance. Economics should never be involved in balancing for the health of a game. If that was the case every single League of Legends Champion would start off super OP to sell more (some argue they are, but statistics show otherwise).

I don't see how my suggested nerfs would make SP worse... in fact I'd think it would make it better as it wouldn't be so annoying to deal with Resistant Hide enemies (although if the designers feel they wanted them to ignore stuff, I'd give them Enchanted Resistant Hide which acts the way current Resistant Hide works).

And yes, the most important thing is "fun" -- but that is almost always achieved through balance that gives players interesting choices and flexibility in strategy. Currently, there are a few cards that remove that because they are simply better than any other alternative. That reduces choice and flexibility and also fun.

I do agree that NS is kind of in a unique position (the ability to stack tons of them) and is very problematic (like most Step attack cards). However, these suggestions are purposely moderate changes -- if more action needs to be taken that is fine. Even with NS being a Move 3 and VP having one less NS I'm sure they will still be very, very strong and probably require another balance pass in the future. But I'd rather keep them strong than completely destroy them without further analysis.

Again, it is easier to rebalance cards than change their rarity classification. Simply saying "Frost Jolt should be Gold" means you'd have to change 6 items completely. That's a lot more problematic than simply adjusting the card itself.

 

Lots of good suggestions here.

Nimbus is reasonable currently because it's visible. The thing that sucks about Toughness (and Lifesaving Block) is that it's hidden. Making Toughness a trait would be interesting, because it would often be pushed off by people who abuse trait cycling.

But that said, I'd like it if Trait Cycling was fixed in general. I'm still hoping for a day when attachments are not so easy to remove without Purge or Holy Presence. It'd be awesome if Holy Presence affected the priest too, but I suppose that might make encumbrance effects slightly too easy to bypass.

It'd be interesting if, instead of 3 attachments, it was possible to have 3 "own" attachments and 3 "other" attachments. Basically, attachments of cards that are from your own deck (Frenzy, Squeamish, Nimbus) would be unaffected by Frost Jolt, Bad Luck, Dastardly Curse or whatever. I'm not sure if the source (self or opponent) or what the card does should be the key to whether things are removable. I suppose there's a lot of more radical ways to revamp traits and attachments, like simply making traits not draw another card, or making it so that a second Squeamish upgrades the first one to Fright or similar (Squeamish and Fright could be combined into one card that says "with 1 counter, this effect, with 2 counters, this worse effect" etc).

I've mentioned before that Resistant Hide should be split into more specific sub-cards, one that stops Electric, one that stops Fire etc. Basically using Grounding Plates as the template.

 

Lots of stuff here, and pretty much all of it has been discussed for quite a while by now.

But no mention of trait cycling / cheap handicap card draws by the OP? If this was supposed to be a complete list, at least I'd like to hear why it was ignored.

Nimble Strike:
- Move 3 from Move 4
--- I'd rather see it moved to gold quality, but otherwise left as-is (or even getting a damage bump - oh heretical me)
For silver quality, we already have Dancing Cut and Vicious Thrust. I don't see much design space for a third card like them in the silver bracket.

Short Perplexing Ray:
- Range 2 from Range 3
--- Leave as is. It's strong but blockable.

Winds Of War:
- Move 2 from Move 3
--- Leave as is. It's strong but expensive at gold quality. The problem with Runestone is Squeamish.

Whirlwind / Whirlwind Enemies:
- Remade: "Move targets three squares randomly then set its facing randomly. Stealthy."
--- Removing the ability to block Whirlwind would only make the card even worse. No thanks. I'd tweak the random generator of Whirlwind a bit to lower the chance of moving the target really far from where it started, but otherwise leave it as is.

Toughness:
- Requires facing to activate
- Ignored by cards with "Penetrating"
--- Penetrating currently does not go past Toughness because that's how Penetrating is defined. Sure, you can change the Penetrating keyword, but that would have consequences elsewhere. I do like the facing idea. Toughness should be a block card rather than an armor card.

Wall Of Stone:
- Removed by Terrain Removal cards (like Cleansing Burst)
---- Yes. I also consider this a bug / oversight.

Impenetrable Nimbus:
- Unsure. Investigate, but suggestion of "reduce damage to a maximum of X."
---- Leave as is. If you want to win MP, learn how to deal with it.
Make the AI smarter to make it less of an easy win card in SP.

Resistant Hide:
- No longer automatically ignores damage but requires a successful roll.
---- In that case, I'd make it Armor 1, roll 2+, if triggered blocks all damage from fire, acid, cold
Cold makes more sense than lightning. Also, it should really only block 1 point of non-elemental damage, not two. The trigger roll should be made easier at 2+ for a 83.3% success chance. Otherwise a lot of SP missions will be much much harder.

Firestorm:
- Range to 10 from Global.
---- Leave as is. Pulling off a good Firestorm requires a combo deck.

Vibrant Pain:
- Reduced to 5 Nimble Strikes from 6 Nimble Strikes.
- Added "Unreliable Block" (or some other weak non-Trait card)
---- That would bump it down to level 15 / blue/yellow token. I'd rather see 3 gold Nimble Strikes + 3 bronze attacks on it. Strong Hack and Penetrating Lunge are rare bronze attacks.

(Explanations for these change suggestions in the main post)[/quote]

 

It would be an interesting change to have Toughness moved to a trait with 3 duration or something (and remove the card draw since Trait already gives one). However, I think that's a complex solution. I'm trying to be as elegant and simple as possible without changing core functionality of things (outside of WW/WWE which has no other viable alternative).

Trait Cycling is a complex issue that a simple change wouldn't easily fix. I think it is a strong strategy, but also leaves yourself open to other problems. Like the lack of being able to rely on personal buffs (traits might cycle them out) and the negatives that many traits give. Having Squeamish upgrade is very complex -- again simplicity is the key. Having 3 enemy attachments and 3 ally attachments would most likely clog up the HUD even more so I don't think that's a good change.

I'd definitely love seeing Resistant Hide being split up into sub-cards. But that would be outside of this proposal. I'm just trying to modify cards based on their already determined innate rarity so there isn't a huge list of items that need changing as well.

Yes, it has been discussed for quite a while now (I've gone through many old topics on it and tried to understand the problems and find solutions). However, none of the topics really compiled the reasons, offered reasons why they are problematic, and gave simple solutions as a stepping stone towards a better balanced game state.

Trait Cycling was "ignored" because it is a very complex issue that would require large changes to the way the game works. I don't think there is any simple solution. If you have one feel free to suggest it -- but I've yet to hear a solution that fixes the problem without requiring drastic changes. Plus, I don't feel it is overly problematic compared to the other issues at hand. It is strong, but not dominantly strong outside of Wizards and Trembling Staff (which should probably get a slight remake as an item).

NS being moved to another rarity is problematic as I've stated before. It would require a large number of items being changed. Plus, it is unique in a sense that it is a Silver Rare while Dancing Cut is a Silver Uncommon. I'm not sure simply changing it to Move 3 would fix the problem completely, but these are simply starting points for further analysis.

Leaving SPR with Range 3 would leave it the best item in the game... when you have the top players in the game who abuse SPR and all saying SPR should be nerfed to range 2 I think there is a reason for it... :-P

Winds of War isn't that expensive. You can get it on a lot of items fairly cheap like Locket Of The Gale, Sargio's Rod, and Greenstone Pendant.

Where did I say you can no longer block Whirlwind or Whirlwind Enemies? Having ANY chance that a target could be thrown completely to the opposite side of the map is problematic as it relies on RNG too much in a game all about planning and strategy.

Ah yes, I guess it is true that the "Penetrating" keyword specifically states "unless it prevents all damage." Maybe that should be removed as well? Good point and I missed that.

Having the AI deal with Imp Nimbus would be amazing... but also dramatically change many levels. They'd probably have to code it so certain monsters (unintelligent ones) still attack targets with it, while others know to ignore it. As for "learn how to deal with it" -- that isn't a good suggestion. When there is really only 1 reliable way to deal with the card (Purge) that is found on only one class (Priest) there isn't really a way to "deal" with it.

I do think that is a better change for Resistant Hide and ultimately the direction I'd probably want to see it go -- but these suggestions are moderate changes that are easy to implement and test. Completely changing numbers on it might be problematic... but I'd definitely say reducing the physical damage it prevents and making it not completely ignore damage without a roll would be the best in the end. Also, I think changing Resistant Hide would make SP easier as many enemies have it and completely shutdown Wizards. How many times have you relied on Resistant Hide vs. how many times the enemy has? They have it a ton more often.

Just because Firestorm requires a combo deck doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. You have to design around the idea that the enemy could in theory have every card in the game and make the best deck in the game. If there is one deck that is super dominant with essentially no counter (or a very, very niche counter) then it is problematic.

True on Vibrant Pain. I forgot about the auto-classification of an item's level based on cards that it has. Maybe they need to change NS both in Step and in rarity... but as I've said before I'm trying to suggest moderate changes that are overly conservative at the moment. Therefore the game is still similar to what it currently is... but hits the outliers slightly before more revision.

 

Re: Wall of Stone (WoS), I actually like that it creates permanent, blocking terrain which cannot be targeted. The caveat to that, I think, is that it should be possible to remove the WoS tiles with a Cleansing Presence -- because this is not targeted. That seems like it would fit the game's existing logic*.

Consider the attributes different of each (player-usable) terrain enchantment type, which I have listed in the attached table image. In this context, Wall of Stone's behavior feels pretty by-design.


*I am undecided as to whether I think Cleansing Burst (CB) should have the same ability with regards to WoS, contingent on the targeting requirements of CB. I seem to recall that CB is similiar to Cleansing Ray (CR) in that it cannot be used if there is not an existing (non-WoS) terrain-effect tile to target. If that is correct, then I think it should be able to clear WoS tiles that fall within 'Burst' range of the targeted tile. My thinking here is that CB [on an adjacent square to a Wall of Stone] would be able to remove WoS tiles because it did not target them directly.

 

Use... yes. Abuse... no.

Each of these cost a blue token. Really, there is nothing wrong with a gold quality spell that moves two figures.

I've beaten the campaign with War/War/Wiz. No priest = no nimbus, all maps can be beaten without it. If the AI stops attacking PCs with Nimbus on, it's still a good protection spell, it just removes the added bonus of the AI wasting all its good attacks.

I know at least two more:
- Wait a turn
- Kill a non-nimbussed ally
I've lost games to Nimbus but in that game the opponent drew 3 in the first two turns. That was lucky. There are quite a few cards that can win you the game if you draw them all in the first turn.

Pure firestorm decks rely on drawing better protection against Firestorm than the opponent. Any nerf to Resistant Hide and trait cycling items like Trembling Staff will bring Firestorm decks down. If you also nerf Impenetrable Nimbus, that's another hit to them.

 

I think it would be best if WoS was removable with any terrain ability. On certain maps it can be a game changer so much that there is very little counterplay. Giving it more counters would make it more interesting instead of simply passing until it ends. Heck, I'd be wiling to go as far as saying making it able to be moved through -- just make it difficult terrain that also blocks line of sight (like a 2 turn Wall of Illusion) -- would be even better for the game. But I'm trying to keep my suggestions moderate.

Yes, abuse. They stack as much SPR-only items as they can. The card advantage it gives is just insanely strong. When you have one of the highest ranked players in the world saying something he uses is OP, I think you have to listen.

Blue token cost is nearly nothing, especially considering that you can get 2 WoWs for a single blue token and it effectively costs the enemy 2 cards (or more in the case of Dwarves) to counter. It is one of the strongest cards in the game, period.

The campaign is easy. I never said the campaign needs Imp Nimbus... I'm just saying using it makes it *much* easier because the AI doesn't register it correctly. Plus, it is very difficult to win the "1 life Challenges" without it.

Waiting a turn is essentially costing you cards (max hand size), a victory point, and letting the enemy set up (you need to get first pass in case they get another Nimbus next turn). Getting 3 in the first 2 turns is not hard at all -- you can put 10 per Priest at little cost. 10/37 not including Traits or draw cards (which Priests will run) means you'll be getting it nearly every turn. The only reason Priests are not dominant in high Elo ranked play is because the current alternatives (NS, WoW, WW/WWE) are so strong. Weakening them would definitely see Imp Nimbus uses grow. Remember though, I didn't say to nerf it -- I said to investigate it.

What is wrong with nerfing Firestorm decks? They are one of the most frustrating and annoying builds that is not healthy for the game. There is nearly no counterplay outside of WW/WWE or high movement cards, and despite the nerfs to draw decks, can still be abused with Savage Curse, Inspiring Presence, Demonic Power, and Inspiration. I mean I got to 1550ish Elo with my Firestorm deck and it wasn't even 100% optimal (only 1 Wym's Lavastaff and only a few 2 Firestorm 0-token items). I know how silly and frustrating it is -- I had more rager quitters from my FS deck than anything else by far.

 

I happened to test Cleansing Presence in an MP match, and it didn't affect Wall Of Stone. One thing to remember is that Bursts are stopped by Blocking terrain, so it would make some sense that Wall Of Stone is immune to Cleansing Burst.

 

@Stexe: Okok. Before we get bogged down in a "this card is broken" - "no, it's just good" for every single card in the list, let me consider it from a more general perspective.

Most of the cards in the list are silver and gold quality cards: Nimble Strike, SPR, WoW, Toughness, Wall of Stone, Resistant Hide. (Everything except Firestorm and the two Whirlwinds.)

In other words, these cards are supposed to be good. They are the cards you pay resources for. (Note)

The yardstick for a silver card is Powerful Hack at 11 damage. For gold it is Mighty Hack at 14 damage.
Ask yourself - would I play gold card X or just Mighty Hack him? That's half hp for a human warrior, not too shabby. Of course, there is no straight scientific answer to this that fits each deck, opponent, map and game situation, but if you have been playing CH a lot, I'm sure you have a feeling for it.

What I'm worried about is that we're talking about a general sweeping nerf to all cards that are currently considered good. I'm worried that these nerfs don't make the game more varied, but kill some alternative strategies that are not move-whack. You make a lot of good points, but some of the fix suggestions may just go too far.

As an alternative, it's also important to consider buffing some gold and silver value cards that currently nobody uses because they are just not that useful. Advanced Battlefield Training comes to mind, and a few others.

Note: In level 18 MP, you have a 36 card deck (+ racial move), from 12 items (weapons count double). With your tokens, you can equip a total item value of 4x 18 + 4x 15 + 4x 6 = 156. So your average card quality is 4.3, between bronze (3) and silver (6). Cards of silver quality or better should be useful, otherwise there is no reason to equip them.

 

I know it doesn't affect Wall of Stone, that's one of the proposed changes to make it have more counterplay. Right now there's nothing that can be done to remove Wall of Stone. An enemy can put it down on a VP spot and completely negate it for 2 turns. Kind of boring and frustrating that there is no way to stop it.

It isn't only my opinion that a card is broken. When one of the best Card Hunter players in the world says a card is problematic and has succeed because of focusing on it -- then there is something going on.

As for card quality based on power you also have to factor in rarity and the idea that the developers might not have foreseen everything. They vastly undervalue step attacks for basically every card. Maybe if step attacks were used for either the step or the attack they would be balanced, but that's a huge change that would fundamentally change the game. The changes I'm suggesting would keep the game pretty much the same (outside of WW/WWE changes).

"Currently considered good" as in have been considered good since the game's release? As in the top players all use them? I don't understand how you can say nerfing these would not lead to more variety when currently there is almost no variety at high level play. You see Dwarven Control Wizards or 2 Nimble Strike Warriors + WW/WWE Wizard. There are a few exceptions, but the vast majority is one of those two builds. Bringing them down a small notch would still keep them powerful, but lead to more interesting builds.

And I've said it many times before, I'm working on a "buff suggestion list" similar to this one for later.

Not sure where you're getting your numbers from in your math analysis or what it has to do with anything being discussed...

 

Okay, that makes two opinions in the very small world of Card Hunter players. There are assuredly others who agree. IMO they will be the, "This is strictly a strategy game," players.

Strategy is definitely an important part of the game, but if the designers had wanted it to be strategy-only I don't think they'd have thrown so many wild cards (WW, etc.) into the deck. I believe the strategy-only players have a vision for the game that is in conflict with the designer's vision. Of course the designers may never have intended to put the wild cards in the game and just bungled things horribly, but I find that highly unlikely. As I've said before, I play several strategy-only games, and I don't consider this to be one.

 

It isn't just two opinions. Nearly every top player I've interviewed has said SPR is one of the best cards in the game and needs to be taken down a peg. What is the easier way to do that without completely changing functionality or limiting it on items (both non-elegant or simple solutions)? The answer is reducing its range to 2 to push it into a "defensive only" niche.

This game is primarily a strategy game. Especially in multiplayer when you have a matchmaking system -- if it was purely casual there would be no rewards for winning and there would be no visible Elo.


From my time talking with some of the designers they said that WW/WWE was never intended to be so powerful. It was meant to re-set the board, but they figured no one would use it competitively because it is so random and can hurt you more often than not. They didn't factor into the idea that "you choose when you use it" -- so you just wait until the enemy is low on move cards, or you're in a position that can only improve from the randomness. Plus, it is a global card that is easy to get so it can be used to pull blocks, attack without line of sight (LoS), and mess over nearly every team composition. Pretty sure that isn't what the developers intended considering how much emphasis is put on facing, positioning, holding certain victory point locations, and having LoS for nearly every card in the game. WW/WWE just throws everything up with no regards for any established parts of the game and leaves it up to chance.

 

Whirlwind is fine. WWE... we can make that one a mass maze type effect. Or maybe a spell somewhere along the lines of "range 10, burst 3, knockback 3" so you could break up tight groups. Whirlwind is a very nice silver bullet to have exist within the game as a potential counter to turtle builds, and it is possible to preserve that while still weakening the mechanic enough to make the annoying spam whirlwind decks less effective.

 

I agree with the following sugetions:

Nimble Strike:
- Move 3 from Move 4
I think with 3 it's still good enough

Toughness:
- Ignored by cards with "Penetrating"
because Thoughtness is a armor and penetrating ignore armors

Wall Of Stone:
- Removed by Terrain Removal cards (like Cleansing Burst)
because it is a kind of terrain (I think)

I think that changes would be ok

I don't like WW and WWE because they are random and there aren't skill involved in them but I don't know what to do with them.

 

I think Stexe's original post pretty much nails it, and this is the key thread on balance at this point in time.

I would like to add that card advantage and card cycling are the roots of most of the problems (2 in 1 cards like Nimble Strike, or dual target cards like Winds Of War), and the principles behind the cards should also get attention.

I think the devs will deal with all of these with an expansion, rather than nerfing. Something new to reduce the effectiveness of WoW, WWE, NS & SPR would be great, and a much better way to deal with them than a nerf. If a card existed such as "When an opponent tries to make you discard a card. that effect is cancelled and they discard their oldest card", that would not only reduce the power of SPR in the environment but also do it by making the game deeper and giving more strategic options. Maybe there will be a new card that makes the opponent take damage every time they draw a cycler, for example. This will be a very fun way of fixing imbalances in the meta. The main downside is that it is slow! I imagine that the next expansion will deal with most or all of these, and in future hotfixes will be kept for the most broken of things that can't wait. Introducing new potential counterplays is far more fun than nerfing existing cards or items.

 

Worth noting that these hypothetical cards need to be maindeckable.

If they end up just being hosers for some strategies, you won't be able to run them unless you commit to being a part of a rock-paper-scissors meta. See note again at Warlord: card draw was broken, and they introduced cards that punished card draw so brutally that the meta devolved into three kinds of decks: A) those that had draw spells, B) those that had draw hate, C) those that had neither. B beat A and C beat B and A beat C. Sideboarding makes these kinds of issues a bit better, but in general you can't balance broken cards just by printing hate unless you have sideboards. The hate will either be too weak to run when it's irrelevant, and thus not be playable, or too strong when it IS relevant, and thus it'll create the kind of situation I just mentioned.

The other possibility, walking a very fine line, is to make cards that kind of hate on broken cards, while also being relevant in other match-ups.

For instance, Arrogant Armor could be seen as hate vs. encumber/firestorm, but is also fine in most matchups due to being decent armor.

 

My idea for stopping draw decks is to change Mind Worm to say: "Attach to target. Duration 3. Whenever target draws cards, the number of cards drawn is reduced by 1." This cancels Inspiration, Inspiring Presence, Martyr Blessing and all cyclers for that char. And if your opponent isn't using any of those? It still cuts their draw phase in half. And then I'd partially reverse some of those draw nerfs.