Balance Changes: Round Three

The problem is that Cause Fumble only blocks Melee. So like Weak Parry, it's a dead card against wizard-heavy groups, and unlike Cleansing Burst you can't get utility out of it by playing other cards (like Volcano) or now, using it to heal. And unlike Parry/Weak Parry/Pushback Parry, there is no card draw AND the cost of putting Cause Fumble into your deck is much higher. (6 points VS 3 points / 1point / whatever pushback parry is worth).

If you are going to risk putting Block Melee cards into your deck, the risk should be worth it. That's all I'm saying.

Hopefully, using a Priest with Cause Fumble will prove to be more useful in practice than it is on paper.

 

I think it is more about the psychological factor of surprise. The enemy is flanking your wizard and uses an OB.... surprise! -- the Priest has Cause Fumble and blocks the attack. I'd say it could use a slight range increase or something, but we'll see.

 

We'll see huh? It's easier to prove a card is too strong rather than trying to prove that a card is too weak. At this point, with only 3 range and requiring the priest to face the enemy, I'm not sure how useful it really is.

 

Cause Fumble was always a block melee card. It saw no play before because it was narrow and unreliable. Now that the it is more reliable I expect it will see more play depending on how popular triple wizards are.

Range is much less of an issue. You need to get through 2 characters and get to the backside of the priest without access to pre balance Whirlwinds or Nimble Strikes. Even then you've just isolated the character you sent in.

I've only gotten to play the new Cause Fumble against Cardotron but I can say that I feel a lot better sending in a defenseless warrior now than I did before.

 

Yeah I really didn't mind the omnidirectional thing as much as it previously having 6 range which could cover most of a map. Now that it is a much more reasonable 3 range the facing and the fact that it no longer draws a card seem to be significant drawbacks. The draw a card thing I get because you could potentially have a priest that had 9x Cause Fumbles in their deck which could potentially chain and completely shut down a warrior, still it feels like it could use some love since it doesn't do anything against wizards. I'm not saying make it block all or anything but maybe give it back its omnidirectionality?

 

I'm not sure which is better or worse -- current or future. Current is 5+, range 6, draw a card. That is probably stronger than the current version overall -- but a lot more risky. I think it could use to stand a range increase (to 4 or 5) with 3+ and no card draw. Maybe even changing it to 2+ like Parry and keeping it at 3 range would be better.

 

I don't like any bigger range, would be weird. It could have roll 2+ too, wouldn't mind that.

 

roll 2 would be way too strong. You risk barely anything and gain the reliability of an umbrella parry. Yes defender's block exists and its better but can only be obtained through shield, cause fumble could load up on very cheaply, bring 2 for no token etc. Would just change the flavor of the card from exotic to standard equip on priests facing melee. Slippery slope here gentleman, those who ran cause fumble decks on test serv and those who played against them with melee know what I mean. How fun is it to play when you're faced by nearly surefire blocks stacked 3v1 to every atk? I'll tell you, not very. Removing card draw was a very welcome and necessary rollback, the die roll currently makes it a gamble yes, but not completely worthless either.

Its patently obvious there will always be some version of dead cards, not everything can do everything. Parry, Pushback Parry, yep dead cards vs. wizards, counterspell, forgetfulness, worthless vs. warrior, yet how many competitive builds still run stuff like parrying buckler, plenty, because it works, and not everyone can fit a block any. I just feel its a bit disingenuous to try to frame the debate in terms of "dead card vs. so and so, so we must change it !"

Another small note with all the changes, step nerfs, push/control nerfs, movement on block nerfs, imo its going to be generally more difficult to get behind enemy facing than it is currently, by extension, blocks effectiveness has already been enhanced, I'd like to see what happens when this update hits the general mp population before you start calling for stuff like buffing tokenless stackable melee umbrella blocks.. I've even seen a couple threads and posts calling for more restrictions on team movement in all forms which would also indirectly buff blocks (reliability of facing increased)

 

Very true. It is probably fine in its current incarnation. I always thought Cause Fumble was sleeper hit card, I just never used it due to not using Priests (and because Mass Frenzy is so OP).

 

What are you talking about, tokenless stackable melee blocks? The only item I see is a legendary Relic of St. Darqar, which would be nice to take the dust off of.
Certainly items with one or two Cause Fumble are pretty costly, and Mass Frenzy or Martyr's Blessing have the same cost but are much more reliable picks.

I've said it before, the risk has to be worth it.

 

Well, maybe Mass Frenzy and Martyr's Blessing are OP? I'd say definitely.

 

I think they're powerful, and 2 decent reasons to run a priest, but not OP. Both can be purged (counterplay), and either can be beaten without purging (kill or avoid the guy). They can make life more difficult for opponents, but that's kinda the whole purpose of buffs.

 

Mass Frenzy and Martyr's Blessing are never dead cards but they match up poorly against Cause Fumble. If your attacks don't land the buffs are worthless. Cause Fumble gives you an edge in melee matches just as Parry and Dodge do. You may not think it's powerful enough to run but getting 1-3 shields worth of blocks for your entire party without diluting the density of attack cards on your warriors is pretty darn good.

 

The problem is that there isn't meaningful counterplay with other classes. It would be nice if Warriors had access to Purging Strike and Wizards had some type of Purging Bolt or something (not as good as what a Priest has, but some variety of buff removal).

 

I would disagree, you need a priest to cast them the least your opponent should be required to do is have a priest to remove them. If they want to run three warriors or three wizards that is fine but in doing so they have to accept that their unbalanced team layout has some serious potential drawbacks. They have made the trade off for more raw damage at the cost of utility. I really don't feel that they should set things up so you can get all the benefits of running a priest sans actually running a priest.

 

There are more buffs than simply Priest buffs. Also, just because someone has a Priest doesn't mean you should be required to run a Priest. Each person should be free to make a party that they feel comfortable with and that suits their play styles without being significantly hampered.

Games should be decided during play, not effectively before the match has even started.

 

I agree that it shouldn't be rock/paper/scissors automatic, but some builds should have definite advantage over others. It should be balanced enough that one or two builds don't dominate, but there should always be the possibility of feeling you've brought a knife to a gun fight. Knives in skilled hands occasionally win those.

 

There is nothing wrong with rock, paper, scissors as long as rock doesn't suddenly start getting bits of scissors to beat paper with. If you start spreading around one of the things that defines priests then the class starts to lose meaning. You show me a perfectly balanced game and I'll show you a boring game.

 

Chess and Go are "perfectly balanced" and have been around for thousands of years. There are entire institutions built around them.

Having a game that boils down to primarily rock-paper-scissors before the match means playing the match is ultimately pointless save for hoping the enemy makes silly mistakes. I like to win on my own skills, not on the mistakes that others make.

It is a shame that Blue Manchu doesn't have a full time designer who can dedicate the time this game needs. I am curious what DropForge does with it though since I know they've hired one.

 

I think it's okay if there are cards that are better in some match-ups than others, even going so far as being dead cards some of the time. That's the entire basis for even having a metagame, which is an interesting and fun part of any competitive deckbuilding game as far as I'm concerned. That said, we don't want entire builds to only be good in some match-ups, so we don't want too many situational cards. I think everyone here is a little right.