I've seen many players suggest that if you must choose to bring some non-any blocks along, they should be melee. This is seemingly because you will almost always encounter at least one enemy with melee attacks, where ranged attacks are not so guaranteed nor as damaging on average. Considering that trend I'm wondering why the melee blocks are generally more reliable (trigger-number-wise) than ranged/magic blocks. It seems there is more incentive to bring melee blocks both because melee attacks are more guaranteed to be encountered and more severely damaging... so wouldn't it make sense to re-balance the block trigger numbers to make ranged/magic blocks more appealing to counter the higher desirability of melee blocks? The most straightforward way to do that seems to be to make ranged/magic blocks trigger more frequently so they become a more viable option, but I suppose nerfing popular blocks could also be done. If anyone has access to card usage statistics I'd be quite curious for insight on the relative popularity of different blocks, and it might go a long way in determining if there is an imbalance between the various block types. If there is (and I'm assuming there is based on advice and the blocks I regularly see played) then another question becomes how much incentive the out of favor blocks would need to actually rival the popular options in viability. Also if anyone can lend insight into the design process that initially led to the blocks being balanced as they current are, I'd be curious to hear that thought process.
This is an interesting trend I've been seeing for sure, but magic blocks are kind of important to be where they are. Warriors get a lot of attacks, but wizards have both fewer attacks and less damage on them, which balances out the less effective blocks. Furthermore, if a warrior attack is blocked it usually means they're going to have to try another attack. With wizards, it can mean something along the lines of not being able to push an uncomfortably close warrior away or not slowing down that really speedy vamp barreling towards you. As for the melee/magic block usage rate, I haven't seen a pure magic block in a LONG time outside of campaign, which is always nice for me considering my cadre of wizards. EDIT: A friend of mine informed me that he uses Bullseye Shield on his warrior in multiplayer, so don't assume it's unviable!
I somewhat agree with @Foz's analysis, but I think he's missing a very important point: warriors' mobility. Sure, the amount of damage a warrior can dish out can be scary, but that wouldn't be that much of a problem, if you were able to keep them at a safe distance, at least to some degree. Very mobile warriors (lots of step attacks + team moves + other shenanigans) have been popular for a number of months now, especially at mid-to high tier (1200+). The same goes with vampires. Hell, I think I haven't seen a serious non-mobility-focused warrior build for what, 1 year? It got to the point where even 3DC builds have a very hard time keeping enemy warriors away (which would also explain why some players have lots of issues dealing with nimbus builds, at least partially). So, in short, not bringing melee/any blocks in your decks, and lots of them, iis basically stating you're willing to be seriously punished by your enemies. I wouldn't say wizards are not as much of a threat. But certainly you can at the very least take cover, if need be. Also, since wizards these days don't usually rely on penetrating spells, armor is generally enough to at least absorb a sensible amount of the average wizard's damage output (not thinking about crazy buffing here of course). The big melee attacks aren't really penalized by your opponent wearing armor, so blocks remain as the only reliable source of effective defense when an enemy warriors is around. That being said, I don't agree with what Foz says about why and how blocks should be balanced. I need to run right now, will follow up on this later.
I've tried to put this in many different ways, but I always end up with a wall of text of some kind (apologies in advance). Anyway, here's my follow up. I do have a problem with the prospect of altering the game's balance because a given set of items/cards is underused. The fact a card is underused doesn't mean that card needs any balance changes. Not necessarily. For starters, the meta can very rapidly change for whatever reason (a round of balance changes, cool new strats being discovered, boredom, whatever). Also worth being kept in mind, is the fact any balance decision has to be made be weighting SP considerations together with MP ones. CH's is riddled with cards which are very often used in in MP, but only rarely in SP. The opposite is also true. Magic blocks can indeed be extremely useful in certain SP modules. This might seem underwhelming, as ideally good balance should promote the use of all sorts of cards in all modes of play. That's only a guideline though, and BlueManchu already stated they have absolutely no problem with some cards being more or less useful depending on what mode you're playing. After all, we're talking a game with only 460-something cards and 1700+ items up for the player to chose from. What I would question though, is whether or not magic blocks are underpowered/overvalued when compared to their melee/any counterparts. This other, more methodical approach, I can pretty much get on board with. In that specific regard, I do agree with @Foz. Block cards (of all kinds) might need some work. It's just I'd be much happier if that was done b/c an actual problem is there to be fixed (which is likely the case) rather than "these cards are underused -> let's buff these cards". But, as things currently stand, warrior builds are both so popular and so effective people wouldn't still want magic-only blocks over melee/any ones, even if you buffed them significantly.
To me the issue seems even simpler. Assuming that melee attacks are generally more dangerous, melee blocks being more effective balances that. Given that same assumption, changing things so that melee blocks are less effective would not encourage more use of missile blocks... if anything, it would encourage players to either pack even more melee blocks or give up on them altogether if defence via blocking becomes relatively ineffective. If it's really true that missile blocks are under-used, then the best way to make them more appealing would be to increase the number and/or value of ranged attacks. Granted, I'm not advising that, since I don't see much reason to believe there's a problem.
People seem to be saying that magic blocks need to be bad for melee-vs-range balance. I don't agree. We've already pointed out that melee attacks are both more damaging and more likely to be encountered. Doesn't that provide enough incentive already to basically guarantee melee blocks will be used? I expect you could make magic blocks pretty amazing by comparison, and they still would not be used because of the already-high incentives for choosing melee blocks. Typically in design balance you try to provide incentives to counter the trends because it brings the cards closer to equality and therefore promotes deckbuilding choices and variety. What several people here have said is the exact opposite - that mechanics should be used on top of the existing meta trends to even further push the use of melee blocks, as if magic blocks should intentionally be made (and kept) useless. I don't see how that's at all logical or good for the game. The obvious comparison to make is Parry vs Catch Arrow. These are both bronze cards with similar design concepts. And yet their game values aren't even close. Parry is an all-star bronze card, while Catch Arrow is in a pretty bad place. Sure you can say some of that is due to the meta, and I'd agree. I don't think that's all of it though. When I see such similar cards that are valued so drastically differently, it makes me think something is wrong. And so I'll ask the question: How good would Catch Arrow have to be for you to actually play it? Or to even consider playing it in MP ever instead of just assuming it's a dead card in your collection? I personally expect it could block on 2+ just like Parry, and people still would not play it because melee blocks are simply better and more necessary. That begs the question of why it is (or should be) mechanically worse than Parry, and I don't feel anyone has put forth an explanation that is adequate yet.
That balance can come from either direction; it isn't necessary to nerf melee blocks. You can buff magic blocks instead to achieve the same shift in their relative power. The reliability of melee blocks is a totally separate matter, and in fact you could shift the block triggers all up or down a certain amount to make blocks more (or less) reliable as a whole. What I'm talking about is the gap between melee and magic blocks, and that can be approached by altering either set of cards toward the other, just to drastically different effect regarding overall block reliability.
Another thing to consider is that the best arcane skill in the game (unless you're running something wacky), Electroporter Novice, grants hard to block to wizard attacks. This is a skill that many players will simply choose by default. Many of the other popular arcane skills grant it as well. This means that blocks vs wizards are very likely to fail anyway, on top of the anti-magic blocks having 3+/4+ rolls. Warriors can get hard to block as well, but they need to specifically pick out weapons which include those types of attacks (and many of those weapons are poor choices). But wizards? They basically get it by default.
Fun story: hard to block on magic is actually one of the reasons for a lot of the changes we made to the campaign recently. Most magic-using enemies had sparks, even if it wasn't especially flavorful for them to, making magic-specific blocks really crummy in singleplayer. Now a lot of those monsters have the arcane Blast or a variant on its theme in their decks instead of sparks.
Oh wow, didn't realize it was the only priest option for Grounding Plates. I dropped one before I even fought the ever-electrical Wyverns, used it, and had just assumed it was normal for a priest to have Grounding Plates. I feel a bit more special now.
The role of the roll is different for melee and magic blocks. A roll of 2 for Parry means that it is a very reliable defense against frontal melee attacks. But it also means that the opponent will knock it out with their worst attack. They can do that because melee attacks are plentiful and generally have the same goal: damage. In addition, warriors have dedicated anti-block cards (War Cry, Unnerving/Startling Strike) and are mobile and tough enough to take advantage of positioning (surrounding the opponent on both sides, quick run to the back). The only reason we aren't seeing more of this is Defender's Block. A higher roll for Parry would reduce skill and increase variance, but it would also make it unpredictable whether you could knock it out with your weakest attack. And it would have no effect on backstabbing or war cry. It would make it a worse card, but not by nearly as much as you think, and imo would make the game worse due to the reduced skill factor. So should Catch Arrow's roll be better? I'd say no for several reasons. First, wizards are not dominant, so why would it need to be better. Second, wizards have a harder time taking advantage of anti-block tactics (they don't want to charge in and pin down a warrior on both sides even if they could). Third, magic attacks are less plentiful than melee attacks, so "knock it out with the worst one" doesn't work as well... it would be a nerf to wizards who try to have any variety, like terrain attachments, in addition to standard attack spells. Fourth, magic is less interchangeable. A great example of this is purge vs nimbus. If you could nimbus a character with roll 2 Catch Arrow you could feel confident that an attempt to purge them would just draw a card. No other spell would be interchangeable with that purge. So you would be nerfing wizards while buffing nimbus priests.
Tangentially, it seems that most cards require a 4- roll, and I wonder how much benefit there would have to be to get something with a 5+ roll played regularly. I almost never saw Cause Fumble used until it was buffed to a 3+ roll, and the only reason you see Thickened Mail in MP is because it's on Perilous Ringmail. I'm not saying there should be more cards with 5+ rolls, or that these cards need a buff, I'm just wondering what it would take to get them played. I certainly see Dodge much less often, and Reflexive Teleport only in a few leagues. (Full disclosure: one of my 2x wiz builds has a Reflexive Teleport, but that's because I had a Round Jade Stone and not Phantom Pain)
Doesn't Spark Generator just replace the benefits of Spark Inductor? Because -5 to block rolls is obscene. Not that Electroporter Novice isn't good either way.
Spark Generator and Spark Inductor stack. It's a terrifying combo against anyone who want to block those arcane attacks or not take loads of damage from sparks.
There are several things that already block magic right now in the meta, not the least of which is the ubiquitous Defender's Block. This fact hasn't seemed to destroy magic users utterly as you suggest. What you're talking about is a symptom of wizards being bad at dealing with blocks, and not necessarily related to whether magic blocks are good enough versus the alternatives. Rather than seeing this as indicative that magic blocks should be crap, if it really is a problem I think it would mean wizards need better ways to deal with blocks - because they are, even now, dealing with plenty of "block any." And the situation is better right now? Right now I could line up as many as 6 Defender's Blocks to potentially backup one guy with an Impenetrable Nimbus. With a magic block, I'd only have whatever copies of the "block magic" card could fit in that one guy's deck - not many, I imagine. I'm saying Defender's Block should already be causing this problem if Purge getting blocked is a realistic concern.
Thanks for the clarification. And that really feels like it should be -1, -2 respectively, then, for a total of -3: Which is already significant enough a boost, especially if you're running electric spells and getting the damage boost as well. As is, I can't argue with the sentiment that Electroporter Novice seems rather overpowering, theme decks aside. Or at the very least, armor > block favoring, which is already a consideration to begin with, given block facing and the generally low base damage of spells compared to other attacks.
In my humblest opinion of fairly new player, to make magic blocks more useful you'd need to make them a bit useful even if there aren't wizzards in the opposite team. Now they're dead cards.
Now you're talking about wider balance changes though, which I can't comment on since I don't know what they would be. All else being equal, I think making parry and pushback parry have worse rolls would be bad, and making Catch Arrow roll on a 2 would be very bad. However, for a different balance change, I do think Electroporter Novice should be nerfed. As for Defender's Block, it is currently the best card in the game, with Aegis the best item. It's dominant in many ways, just one of which is synergy with attachments. But that isn't necessarily the best use of it.
@Killer Bee - My point was simply that the reasons you gave for Catch Arrow becoming a problem should already be evident in the meta because that block functionality is already in play on various popular "block any" cards. Either Catch Arrow would replace those "block any" cards in the meta, resulting in no greater problem to magic users, or it would be relatively ignored and cause no shift at all to the meta. Either way I don't see how it would make spells any less reliable than they already are against the likes of Defender's Block and Surging Shield Block. The popularization of cards that block Purge hasn't seemed to be a problem, so I theorize that the existence of a different narrower card that could block Purge would likewise be no more of a problem than the block meta we already have.
