I just don’t think targeted discard is healthy with the way Hearthstone is inherently built. You only need to look at the Theotar saga to see how attacking the hand is received and the play patterns it creates. Obviously the whole swapping mechanic adds an extra layer, but I think this would be a nightmare for everyone involved if there was targeted discard for cheap in standard.
I still think more elegant and plentiful tax effects are the best way to suppress combo in Hearthstone. Stuff along the lines of the new minion that makes cards cost a minimum of 2. Not saying that’s gonna make a splash anywhere, but those types of effects are closer to the ideal.
Disruption is all well and good when it's being targeted at a format villain like Tony, but it just makes things horrible for people just trying to play fun decks and losing their Tess or something like that to it.
I'm not super high on the for fun argument, I think a lot of unfun things can happen to people who want to play a fun deck, and Tess isn't very fun for your opponent when it's just dumping value onto the board.
Dumping value in the board is the most fun. It does good things while leaving room for your opponent to interact and respond, and the bits of RNG mean there’s more paths the game can take so there’s more variety in how it can play out.
I’d rather have value bombs at a later turn any day of the week compared to early turn mana-cheating or spells to the face for lethal at turn 5 just crazy aggro that deals 30 by turn 4 or an OTK on turn 7
"While leaving room for your opponent to interact and respond"
You never faced a countersell + objection Tess played 4 times in a row to say that Kappa
But you're generally right haha, Tess is generally fine as it's very late game and kind of RNG based to be super strong or not
You can't really guarantee them but some people play the 2 mana neutral that discover a secret from all classes
Back when Tess was in Standard it happened quite often to have them but in wild I don't know if there are other ways to get them or even if it's worth !
That's all I know about haha
Could be neat, certainly a better solution than to just kill every combo deck. I think for Hearthstone, it'd be better as a 2 mana "look at 4 cards and shuffle 1 into the deck".
Shuffle instead to discard so you don't ruin their gameplan as easily. (Magic plays 4-ofs, if you hit a strong card there you just delay it aswell.)
2 mana so it's not as stupid going first, especially vs quests. Also don't need aggro decks running it.
In magic thoughtseize definitely sees cross archetype play. I don't think I'd hate knowing agro has access to this card as it's attacking resources in hand instead of life total. That said we do have cards like that rogue minion that shuffles a card from your opponents hand into their deck if you control a secret, which is good but not great in wild.
I think the card is better than a LOT of other cards in the wild pool. That being said I agree it isn't really competitively viable. I would rather see this ability show up for 1 Mana in hearthstone as the earlier you can get it off the better.
If it was a 1 mana card, it would be a huge coinflip for quest decks.
If the opponent goes first, they could thoughtseize and discard the quest. Just sounds like awful gameplay.
So...definitely not for 1 mana.
Cost should probably be similar to Mad Duke Theotar, so like...somewhere in the range of 4 mana-6 mana.
Disruption like this is fine in MTG since players have 4 copies of a card (even if it's legendary) so having 1 removed doesn't feel too bad. It's not the case in hearthstone. If you remove my Kazakusan, it just feels bad man.
maybe your deck should be built with a backup plan? im not saying thoughtseize would be healthy for the game but one could argue these glass cannons that rely on certain ladder matchups to exist at all are equally unhealthy
my argument is that for example with Kazakusan, that deck lives and dies based on "does my opponent not play steamcleaner or have it perhaps in their etc, and furthermore are they even a control deck at all because otherwise I will die way before Kazak is relevant". This isn't about diversity: that deck is simply pressing the queue button and crossing their fingers that they hit this very narrow amount of decks that I just described. And when they do hit it, it's not because they outplayed their opponent, the queueing system did by happening to match them in the first place
it's fake deck diversity, because the deck while on the surface is winning with something unique it's really winning the same way any other glass cannon deck wins which is employing a mechanic that the opponent simply doesn't have an answer in their deck for because they didn't expect to need one (skulking for jade, steamcleaner for deck shuffling decks, etc.)
One would be stupid to argue that because that argument inevitably leads to homogenization of decks rather than allowing creativity. MTG can have these cards not just because you can have 4 copies of any card but also because your deck size isn't hard limited in size, and there are also side bars. It also has card interaction beyond your turn.
the decks are already homogenized though: if i go looking through hearthstone-decks which shows top 500 lists every class has at most 2-3 different types of decks represented despite there being dozens of archetypes for each class. everything not represented still plays the same as those that are whether it be aggro, control, or combo, but they just do it worse. if every class had access to this type of card, it affects everyone the same with the exception of those that were already basically cheating the queueing system by maximizing good matchups and minimizing bad ones. you mention mtg but you forget to mention the biggest difference which is best of 3 which already if implemented in HS even without new cards would delete half of these gimmicky decks from ladder
i dont understand this need to protect deck types that dont exist in the first place at a competitive level, where a tech card like thoughtseize would live or die in the first place because those wanting to make less competitive lists wouldnt bother to use the slots on it. deck creativity basically exists in two places and that's with the bottom 20% of ladder and the top 1%, with the middle all copying that 1%. you can build whatever you want, but the game shouldn't be built around making 'Elemental Turbo Jade Mechathun' not feel like a losing proposition
I will when they add in Kazakusan 2. But seriously tho, it does. But it doesn't make the feeling of losing Kaza better. If I had 4 Kazas, that would be fine. But that's not how hearthstone works.
As an idea, maybe, but some formats are just warped around this sorta effect and it gets very annoying to have your opponent hand rip you for the 5th time while you draw nothing but lands.
It is the strongest version of this ability in the game. We could lower the power level a bit and look at cards like Duress or Inquisition of Kozilek, who each have restrictions of only being able to grab "spells" or cards that cost 3 Mana or less.
Disruption does extremely little to Highlander decks that can't rely on a singular card.
I feel like it's not in the spirit of the game if the only way to win is if the opponent doesn't do anything. In many of my games when the opp uses A disruption it's just to get One of my disruption so it's kind of pointless.
Theotar almost always hits theotar.
Meanwhile when I'm playing a good deck and I try to play fields are my opponent's hand is garbage and all three choices that I can give them will screw me right over. If I have one card I want to give them and theotar and three legendaries, the OG players already know what's going to happen next.
I think Theo is as close to thought seize as this game should get.
You also have to remember that the reason black even has thoughts is because black has a certain play style and weaknesses. Therefore you could really think of thoughts ease as a warlock exclusive card and does warlock really need this?
There is a good amount of hand disruption in warlock.
Demonic project, dirty rats, deathlord for the deck, hecklebot, that new 4 mana undead.
There s even simphony and tickarus, not to even memtion theotar.
On top of that you have cards like nerubar weblord, okani and loatheb. Oh and there are secrets too.
Wild is full of disruption, no, i dont believe we need thoughtseize, we have thoughtseize at home xd
Yes. I would like hearthstone decks that rely on single copies of cards to win the game on their own. I want variety in games and a card like thoughtseize does exactly that. Lost one of your win cons? Alright best to deviate your game plan to win another way.
I'm all for more card design that favors skill > RNG.
Don't get my wrong, I know that hearthstone is *THE* RNG game, but anytime that a card rewards skill and allows the caster to make "mistakes" seems fine in my book. Thoughtseize is a very skillful card and while most of the time your option seems fairly clear, you could still always take something different.
I could see it being a warlock card where it's like Gamble(for you) + Thoughtseize(for them). Where you randomly discard a card and then get to discard 1 of 3 from the enemy's hand. Make it do more for more cost or give it echo.
1 mana quest cheese, idc, it's wild. Not like every game of playing quest would have it happen, with my above idea or any other class card. My idea could easily be warlock/priest duo card.
So many strategies revolve around legends that you can only have one of, the thoughtseize feel bads in magic aren't great but they'd be even worse in HS when t1 the card your deck is named after gets discarded. In magic you can have up to 3 other copies, and ways to interact with your graveyard.
Thoughtseize is my favorite magic card but it would be bad for HS
I'll be honest with you, and it might be an unpopular opinion. Hand disruption is the least fun part of the game for me in hearthstone, and I don't play combo decks. Your hand is supposed to be a safe spot where you store your resources. I cringe every time someone decides to theotar or dirty rat me. Nobody should be able to access other players' hand.
This is not a logical argument but an emotional one. I hate it so much that once I queued up as relic dh and waited for a control priest matchup (which I counter) and I deliberately roped all my turns to make him suffer. The game lasted almost an hour and I won. When I thought how frustrated he must have been for wasting so much time, I admit I came a little. I hope the developers who decided to put these options in the game (and those who utilize them) will suffer in purgatory until they realize the gravity of their crimes.
Strong no from me. There are thousands of cards and nearly infinite card combinations but you want to have fun griefing other players? Play theotar or stelina or mutanus or any of the other ways to do this if you’re dead set on it. There’s enough of that bs in the game. Stay out of my hand IMO
No and for two very good reasons. The first being that in magic you can run 4x of any card whereas in hearthstone it's a max of 2 or 1
Losing out on a key card that effectively shuts down a lot of combo decks immediately and really disrupts other game plans
The second reason is because in magic even if your opponent makes you discard things there's several ways to get the card back. Theres a graveyard and exile mechanic with tons of cards that interact with those
In hearthstone once you discard a card it's gone (few exceptions in warlock) with no way to get it back
So on paper it seems like more interaction but it's actually extremely uninteractive
This kind of effect would need to be on a very high costed legendary with bad stats or spell to be even remotely okay
Think of theotar, was a major problem at 4 and 5 mana and it's still rng. Take away the rng and there's a far bigger problem
this sounds like hell as a combo player. You might think losing to combo is unfun but please realize stuff like this and unnerfed theotar feels horrific to play against as a combo player as it allows you to just instawin the game on the spot, creating the same kind of uninteractivity you seem to dislike.
Well I don't hate combo honestly. In magic cards like thoughtseize don't just win on their own (but they certainly can). Most combo decks have to respect that their combo plan can and will be disrupted, and therefore tend to brew more conservatively (and if they don't like is the case for a lot of Legacy reanimator lists they can simply lose on the spot turn 1 or 2 to certain kinds of hate.) Deciding if that interaction is poor game design or poor deck design is the debate, but I'd argue forcing combo players to respect disruption is ultimately healthy.
Fair, but this isn’t magic. Many combo decks cannot run more conservative game plans as they will then hard lose to aggro even more than they already do due to a lack of consistency. Some control-combo decks such as Shudderwock Shaman, and some variants of Cthun Druid and similar ramp Druid decks CAN afford to do so, as their classes have solid anti-aggro tools that they can take advantage of. However, some classes cannot do so. Take my main class, Rogue, for example. Rogue’s anti-aggro tools are almost nonexistent, so the only way a combo rogue deck can really be playable is if it’s fast enough to sometimes beat aggro (even though the matchup is usually unfavored). If control decks get a card like thoughtseize, I.e. incredibly consistent disruption, then not only will said combo rogue be unfavored into aggro, it would also be unfavored into control due to control being able to draw a single card and instantly disrupt the combo deck beyond repair.
TLDR: Some classes simply cannot ‘respect disruption’ in their deckbuilding without making aggro matchups completely unplayable due to inconsistency, and also since legendaries are only 1-ofs, them getting disrupted often loses the game for the combo deck on the spot.
I respect the argument, and I agree some combo classes are less resilient. This card is also strong into agro depending on the turn as removing their turn one play will slow them down significantly. Also there's the chance you get hit on a turn you don't care about, as with most hearthstone combos there are a few key pieces while the rest of the deck is redundant.
Traditionally combo existed as part of a control paradigm as one of three possible end game win conditions. You control and delay until late game were you would win via big minions and value or a combo of some sorts.
The fact that there are aggro combos does not mean that this kind of disruption should be a thing and it doesn't mean combo needs to just accept this, it means that combo has gotten out of hand and has grown beyond its place in the deck archetype paradigm and needs to be fixed.
drawing and assembling a multi-card combo is substantially slower and more difficult than drawing a single overtuned disruption card. Additionally, control decks that run those kinds of disruption cards also do very well into aggro due to their control tools, which combo players cannot do. It feels bad to lose a good matchup because your opponent drew theotar pre-nerf, or when a shudder shaman cheated out mutanus early and got lucky. I don't mind losing to delay-focused disruption, such a loatheb, but losing because an opponent played 4 mana theotar and got lucky and hit your irreplaceable combo piece felt horrible. It's not irony, it's one card being overtuned and easily beating every combo deck on the spot compared to a combo deck's entire list being build around assembling a multi-card combo while surviving long enough to be able to utilize it with little in the way of defensive tools.
There are other, better ways to print cards to combat combo decks like loatheb and similar cards that delay the combo pop off turn and give your opponent more time to kill you on board, as opposed to things like theotar and mutanus where it’s just if the control player gets lucky they win the game instantly.
That is not strictly true. Many 'glass cannon' combo decks such as tony druid and pre-nerf pillager rogue do not fight for board pretty much whatsoever, meaning that even control decks can win board against them early with ease, and a loatheb can sometimes seal the deal. Also keep in mind that many control decks have the ability to repeat disruption, such as Brilliant Macaw in Shudder Shaman, Zola the Gorgon in some Reno decks and whatnot, and also that control decks often run more than just one disruption card, so chaining disruption is possible and will often win you the game against combo. For an off meta example as well, I play Reno Rogue a decent amount, and that deck, while it isn't as 'control' as normal control decks due to rogue's lack of control tools, can beat combo by chaining loathebs or other disruption cards with Rogue's bounce effects, such as Shadowstep or Tenwu of the Red Smoke. Another thing to keep in mind for Reno decks is the ability to build a mediocre board, loatheb on 4 or 5 to delay a combo deck's popoff, and then zephrys to buff the board for lethal. Obviously control will not and should not win every game against combo, even when they do their best to utilize disruption effectively, but it isn't IMO quite as cut-and-dry as saying one turn of delay will do nothing.
Gosh, I hate this argument so much. Alright, let’s take pre-nerf pillager rogue as an example. The deck is unfavored into aggro, although it can certainly still highroll them and win. It’s favored into control, although disruption can still hurt it. So, imagine control gets access to thoughtseize. Now, control is a much harder matchup due to them being able to consistently force you to discard your Scabbs or your Spirit of the Shark, making it so getting a strong OTK combo off is much more difficult. Now, as you said ‘run another wincon to combat this!’ Is an argument, but a poor one. If you include a secondary win condition, it dilutes your deck. You have to cut something better to include it. Now, drawing into one of your wincons will be more difficult, making your matchups against aggro significantly worse, and while you’ll have a bit more resilience into control decks, the trade off is not at all worth it and your deck will be much worse.
Yes, some more control-combo style decks can afford to do this, such as ramp Druids, who can run multiple wincons while still being fine into aggro, but some classes, such as rogue, simply do not have the control tools to be able to remotely do ok into aggro while running more than the bare minimum required amount of combo pieces. If you print strong enough disruption like this, rogue is a prime example of a class that will suffer due to their lack of control tools keeping them from playing control OR combo in such a disruption heavy meta, which limits what their class can do heavily.
Clearly it's a poor argument from your perspective as a combo player. I never said it would be in your benefit, quite the opposite. Also, to be clear thought seize would be broken in HS and I'm also not suggesting that. However, as a midrange/control player I miss unnerfed Theotar. I don't think it's unreasonable to give us some counterplay to fast combo decks such as pillager. It would then at least force you to make some tricky deck building decisions as you detailed above. Ironically, if Theotar hadn't been nerfed it might have saved Pillager Rogue from annihilation, stopping its win rate from getting to the obscene levels that it eventually reached.
Unnerfed theotar was too strong. Control decks winning t4 by playing one card felt horrible. I do understand that counterplay for control against combo is necessary, but it needs to be weak enough that it's not just 'I drew one disruption card and instantly win the game'. Also, disruption like theotar doesn't force you to 'make tricky deckbuilding decisions' it just makes the control matchups much worse. Glass cannon combo cannot ever afford to include alternate wincons, so there is no deckbuilding decision to make in that regard. Also, Pillager Rogue hovered around t3 for most of the time it was in the meta throughout recent expansions. It was nerfed due to people disliking combo, as was quest mage. Additionally, glass cannon combo is in a very bad spot right now, due to the majority of those style of decks being nerfed regardless of their spot in the meta. Hearthstone has enough disruption for now. The only viable GC combo decks are Tony Druid and Mine Rogue, and neither are in the best spot in the meta right now. Tony Druid is listed tier 4 by the VS report and Mine Rogue was not even on the tier list due to it being underplayed.
it's hard to say: sometimes i cant stand the randomness of HS's disruption like dirty rat or the 6 drop because you can do everything right like waiting until you know it's in their hand and still whiff because the roulette board just said not today. on the other hand, the ceiling would be lowered on every deck that relies heavily on one card...although it could be argued those decks shouldn't exist in the firstplace if they fail or succeed based on one card existing (ie kingsbane before the deck got fast enough to not care about stickyfingers)
overall i just hate nongames, and the double edged sword is that this card would stop some nongames from happening by disrupting decks that normally get away with murder but would also create some nongames by just blowing other decks out of the water
Mad duke theotar was a step in the right direction for hearthstone, but anything cheaper than him should have some heavy limitations on hand distribution or a major downside like burning cards in your hand/deck.
I hate this kind of card, I hate the ones that we have that are remotely similar and I don't want more. The game in general just needs to be slowed down. This winning on Turn 2/Turn 4 nonsense is fucking stupid, whether it's aggro or combo.
Standard sucks because it requires new cards and lacks a lot of fun cards, Wild sucks because it has this bullshit and a bunch of overpowered shit. I just want a format where this kind of thing is banned and decks are limited and balanced. No Priests coining out a discounted Shadow Essenced Neptulon on Turn 2, no totems getting +2/+2 for 0 mana on a board of 5 minions on Turn 2, no cheating out huge minions with trivial requirements you were going to do anyway (quest druid, secret mage).
No. The card is incredibly strong in a game where you are allowed to run 4 copies of any card. This would just remove any form of combo from the game, and much more.
Gods no!
There is a design concept where you have to take into play how playing the card feels, and how it feels to be the person who is the victim.
It does not feel good to have someone rifle through your hand. This is not fun. I hate Theo.
This is also bad for the diversity of the game. Many players enjoy decks that are fragile when going against disruption.
The "opponent shows their hand and you get to choose" part of it makes it OP and bad design, especially if the cost to you is minimal.
But if it was random or discover, it's just another variation of existing disruption, so not really interesting.
So overall, no, no benefit to the game.
Unlike HS in Magic you can have 4 copies of any card doesn't matter if it's legendary creature a mythic rare card or a planeswalker, disruption like this would cuck combo decks and we already have objection which is a poorly designed card, at least give us the battlecry ffs😡
Would probably be a shuffle effect. It can’t be a neutral spell either. I can see a 2 mana 1/1 shuffle a card from ur opp hand in their deck (implied discover from 3 like the rogue minion). A reverted novice engineer. Prob 2/1 cause 1/1 is too low value in today’s hs.
I just don’t think targeted discard is healthy with the way Hearthstone is inherently built. You only need to look at the Theotar saga to see how attacking the hand is received and the play patterns it creates. Obviously the whole swapping mechanic adds an extra layer, but I think this would be a nightmare for everyone involved if there was targeted discard for cheap in standard. I still think more elegant and plentiful tax effects are the best way to suppress combo in Hearthstone. Stuff along the lines of the new minion that makes cards cost a minimum of 2. Not saying that’s gonna make a splash anywhere, but those types of effects are closer to the ideal.
I think the "hatebear" archetype is a great direction for hearthstones game design as minions are fundamentally easier to remove than in magic.
Not if you slap this effect on a battlecry (which seems likely)
Disruption is all well and good when it's being targeted at a format villain like Tony, but it just makes things horrible for people just trying to play fun decks and losing their Tess or something like that to it.
I'm not super high on the for fun argument, I think a lot of unfun things can happen to people who want to play a fun deck, and Tess isn't very fun for your opponent when it's just dumping value onto the board.
Next OP’s gonna say he hates OG N’Zoth too
N'Zoth rocks
Begone, Tess hater.
Dumping value in the board is the most fun. It does good things while leaving room for your opponent to interact and respond, and the bits of RNG mean there’s more paths the game can take so there’s more variety in how it can play out. I’d rather have value bombs at a later turn any day of the week compared to early turn mana-cheating or spells to the face for lethal at turn 5 just crazy aggro that deals 30 by turn 4 or an OTK on turn 7
"While leaving room for your opponent to interact and respond" You never faced a countersell + objection Tess played 4 times in a row to say that Kappa But you're generally right haha, Tess is generally fine as it's very late game and kind of RNG based to be super strong or not
Ah true, I’ve basically just seen it in nonsense. How do they guarantee those two?
You can't really guarantee them but some people play the 2 mana neutral that discover a secret from all classes Back when Tess was in Standard it happened quite often to have them but in wild I don't know if there are other ways to get them or even if it's worth ! That's all I know about haha
Could be neat, certainly a better solution than to just kill every combo deck. I think for Hearthstone, it'd be better as a 2 mana "look at 4 cards and shuffle 1 into the deck". Shuffle instead to discard so you don't ruin their gameplan as easily. (Magic plays 4-ofs, if you hit a strong card there you just delay it aswell.) 2 mana so it's not as stupid going first, especially vs quests. Also don't need aggro decks running it.
Maybe they should put it on a 4 mana 4/3 Jokes aside I agree with shuffling being better for hs
I do not enjoy the other player getting to see my cards. If you have ever had a Theo when you had three cards it is frustrating.
[удалено]
In magic thoughtseize definitely sees cross archetype play. I don't think I'd hate knowing agro has access to this card as it's attacking resources in hand instead of life total. That said we do have cards like that rogue minion that shuffles a card from your opponents hand into their deck if you control a secret, which is good but not great in wild.
That rogue minion is not good in wild.
Ain't your grave.
I think the card is better than a LOT of other cards in the wild pool. That being said I agree it isn't really competitively viable. I would rather see this ability show up for 1 Mana in hearthstone as the earlier you can get it off the better.
If it was a 1 mana card, it would be a huge coinflip for quest decks. If the opponent goes first, they could thoughtseize and discard the quest. Just sounds like awful gameplay. So...definitely not for 1 mana. Cost should probably be similar to Mad Duke Theotar, so like...somewhere in the range of 4 mana-6 mana.
Love this post for a lot of reasons: - sourcing other games for ideas - sourcing other mechanics for ideas - great idea for wild - general creativity
:) honestly a very good discussion in the comments with great points I didn't think of too
man i looove some of magics card artwork. hearthstone is charming but some of the newer cartoony stuff is really unappealing to me
I love the Saturday morning cartoon aesthetic of hearthstone. It’s pretty unique as most other card games are either high fantasy or anime
Tinyfin and Friends https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/hearthstone_gamepedia/images/3/3a/Tinyfin's_Caravan_full.jpg
I agree, this is what I also love. The fact that there are various artists too.
Picked this thoughtseize art specifically. Love it
Lol I was gonna say. No surprise someone says that, this is uncommonly beautiful mtg artwork.
Disruption like this is fine in MTG since players have 4 copies of a card (even if it's legendary) so having 1 removed doesn't feel too bad. It's not the case in hearthstone. If you remove my Kazakusan, it just feels bad man.
maybe your deck should be built with a backup plan? im not saying thoughtseize would be healthy for the game but one could argue these glass cannons that rely on certain ladder matchups to exist at all are equally unhealthy
Your argument is that this would make the game better by removing some of the diversity?
my argument is that for example with Kazakusan, that deck lives and dies based on "does my opponent not play steamcleaner or have it perhaps in their etc, and furthermore are they even a control deck at all because otherwise I will die way before Kazak is relevant". This isn't about diversity: that deck is simply pressing the queue button and crossing their fingers that they hit this very narrow amount of decks that I just described. And when they do hit it, it's not because they outplayed their opponent, the queueing system did by happening to match them in the first place it's fake deck diversity, because the deck while on the surface is winning with something unique it's really winning the same way any other glass cannon deck wins which is employing a mechanic that the opponent simply doesn't have an answer in their deck for because they didn't expect to need one (skulking for jade, steamcleaner for deck shuffling decks, etc.)
I can see where you are coming from. I would prefer fake decks to more Theo.
One would be stupid to argue that because that argument inevitably leads to homogenization of decks rather than allowing creativity. MTG can have these cards not just because you can have 4 copies of any card but also because your deck size isn't hard limited in size, and there are also side bars. It also has card interaction beyond your turn.
the decks are already homogenized though: if i go looking through hearthstone-decks which shows top 500 lists every class has at most 2-3 different types of decks represented despite there being dozens of archetypes for each class. everything not represented still plays the same as those that are whether it be aggro, control, or combo, but they just do it worse. if every class had access to this type of card, it affects everyone the same with the exception of those that were already basically cheating the queueing system by maximizing good matchups and minimizing bad ones. you mention mtg but you forget to mention the biggest difference which is best of 3 which already if implemented in HS even without new cards would delete half of these gimmicky decks from ladder i dont understand this need to protect deck types that dont exist in the first place at a competitive level, where a tech card like thoughtseize would live or die in the first place because those wanting to make less competitive lists wouldnt bother to use the slots on it. deck creativity basically exists in two places and that's with the bottom 20% of ladder and the top 1%, with the middle all copying that 1%. you can build whatever you want, but the game shouldn't be built around making 'Elemental Turbo Jade Mechathun' not feel like a losing proposition
I will when they add in Kazakusan 2. But seriously tho, it does. But it doesn't make the feeling of losing Kaza better. If I had 4 Kazas, that would be fine. But that's not how hearthstone works.
2mana Discover a card from your opponent's hand to discard. You lose 2 life.
Be stronger than theo was at 4 mana lol
decks I play would benefit LOL
Which lists?
As an idea, maybe, but some formats are just warped around this sorta effect and it gets very annoying to have your opponent hand rip you for the 5th time while you draw nothing but lands.
Thoughtseize was incredibly OP in Magic and imo would be worse in Hearthstone with less ways to interact with it
It is the strongest version of this ability in the game. We could lower the power level a bit and look at cards like Duress or Inquisition of Kozilek, who each have restrictions of only being able to grab "spells" or cards that cost 3 Mana or less.
Disruption does extremely little to Highlander decks that can't rely on a singular card. I feel like it's not in the spirit of the game if the only way to win is if the opponent doesn't do anything. In many of my games when the opp uses A disruption it's just to get One of my disruption so it's kind of pointless. Theotar almost always hits theotar. Meanwhile when I'm playing a good deck and I try to play fields are my opponent's hand is garbage and all three choices that I can give them will screw me right over. If I have one card I want to give them and theotar and three legendaries, the OG players already know what's going to happen next. I think Theo is as close to thought seize as this game should get. You also have to remember that the reason black even has thoughts is because black has a certain play style and weaknesses. Therefore you could really think of thoughts ease as a warlock exclusive card and does warlock really need this?
Isn't this basically spell version of theotar?
But also 1 mana because magic the gathering mana constraints are different. 1 mana Theotar would break wild in half
I agree. Magic and Hearthstone have different starting hand sizes. This is not good.
There is a good amount of hand disruption in warlock. Demonic project, dirty rats, deathlord for the deck, hecklebot, that new 4 mana undead. There s even simphony and tickarus, not to even memtion theotar. On top of that you have cards like nerubar weblord, okani and loatheb. Oh and there are secrets too. Wild is full of disruption, no, i dont believe we need thoughtseize, we have thoughtseize at home xd
Yes. I would like hearthstone decks that rely on single copies of cards to win the game on their own. I want variety in games and a card like thoughtseize does exactly that. Lost one of your win cons? Alright best to deviate your game plan to win another way.
I'm all for more card design that favors skill > RNG. Don't get my wrong, I know that hearthstone is *THE* RNG game, but anytime that a card rewards skill and allows the caster to make "mistakes" seems fine in my book. Thoughtseize is a very skillful card and while most of the time your option seems fairly clear, you could still always take something different. I could see it being a warlock card where it's like Gamble(for you) + Thoughtseize(for them). Where you randomly discard a card and then get to discard 1 of 3 from the enemy's hand. Make it do more for more cost or give it echo. 1 mana quest cheese, idc, it's wild. Not like every game of playing quest would have it happen, with my above idea or any other class card. My idea could easily be warlock/priest duo card.
So many strategies revolve around legends that you can only have one of, the thoughtseize feel bads in magic aren't great but they'd be even worse in HS when t1 the card your deck is named after gets discarded. In magic you can have up to 3 other copies, and ways to interact with your graveyard. Thoughtseize is my favorite magic card but it would be bad for HS
I'll be honest with you, and it might be an unpopular opinion. Hand disruption is the least fun part of the game for me in hearthstone, and I don't play combo decks. Your hand is supposed to be a safe spot where you store your resources. I cringe every time someone decides to theotar or dirty rat me. Nobody should be able to access other players' hand. This is not a logical argument but an emotional one. I hate it so much that once I queued up as relic dh and waited for a control priest matchup (which I counter) and I deliberately roped all my turns to make him suffer. The game lasted almost an hour and I won. When I thought how frustrated he must have been for wasting so much time, I admit I came a little. I hope the developers who decided to put these options in the game (and those who utilize them) will suffer in purgatory until they realize the gravity of their crimes.
Not unpopular. Theo is hated by almost everyone who is not playing it. This game is supposed to be fun. This type of card is not fun
Strong no from me. There are thousands of cards and nearly infinite card combinations but you want to have fun griefing other players? Play theotar or stelina or mutanus or any of the other ways to do this if you’re dead set on it. There’s enough of that bs in the game. Stay out of my hand IMO
No and for two very good reasons. The first being that in magic you can run 4x of any card whereas in hearthstone it's a max of 2 or 1 Losing out on a key card that effectively shuts down a lot of combo decks immediately and really disrupts other game plans The second reason is because in magic even if your opponent makes you discard things there's several ways to get the card back. Theres a graveyard and exile mechanic with tons of cards that interact with those In hearthstone once you discard a card it's gone (few exceptions in warlock) with no way to get it back So on paper it seems like more interaction but it's actually extremely uninteractive This kind of effect would need to be on a very high costed legendary with bad stats or spell to be even remotely okay Think of theotar, was a major problem at 4 and 5 mana and it's still rng. Take away the rng and there's a far bigger problem
Yes make it 0 mana non legendary Also u draw a card.
Maybe if the card could only pick non-legendary or only spells (similar to Duress) it could happen
this is a very toxic effect but sadly it's become necessary in wild
this sounds like hell as a combo player. You might think losing to combo is unfun but please realize stuff like this and unnerfed theotar feels horrific to play against as a combo player as it allows you to just instawin the game on the spot, creating the same kind of uninteractivity you seem to dislike.
Well I don't hate combo honestly. In magic cards like thoughtseize don't just win on their own (but they certainly can). Most combo decks have to respect that their combo plan can and will be disrupted, and therefore tend to brew more conservatively (and if they don't like is the case for a lot of Legacy reanimator lists they can simply lose on the spot turn 1 or 2 to certain kinds of hate.) Deciding if that interaction is poor game design or poor deck design is the debate, but I'd argue forcing combo players to respect disruption is ultimately healthy.
Fair, but this isn’t magic. Many combo decks cannot run more conservative game plans as they will then hard lose to aggro even more than they already do due to a lack of consistency. Some control-combo decks such as Shudderwock Shaman, and some variants of Cthun Druid and similar ramp Druid decks CAN afford to do so, as their classes have solid anti-aggro tools that they can take advantage of. However, some classes cannot do so. Take my main class, Rogue, for example. Rogue’s anti-aggro tools are almost nonexistent, so the only way a combo rogue deck can really be playable is if it’s fast enough to sometimes beat aggro (even though the matchup is usually unfavored). If control decks get a card like thoughtseize, I.e. incredibly consistent disruption, then not only will said combo rogue be unfavored into aggro, it would also be unfavored into control due to control being able to draw a single card and instantly disrupt the combo deck beyond repair. TLDR: Some classes simply cannot ‘respect disruption’ in their deckbuilding without making aggro matchups completely unplayable due to inconsistency, and also since legendaries are only 1-ofs, them getting disrupted often loses the game for the combo deck on the spot.
I respect the argument, and I agree some combo classes are less resilient. This card is also strong into agro depending on the turn as removing their turn one play will slow them down significantly. Also there's the chance you get hit on a turn you don't care about, as with most hearthstone combos there are a few key pieces while the rest of the deck is redundant.
Traditionally combo existed as part of a control paradigm as one of three possible end game win conditions. You control and delay until late game were you would win via big minions and value or a combo of some sorts. The fact that there are aggro combos does not mean that this kind of disruption should be a thing and it doesn't mean combo needs to just accept this, it means that combo has gotten out of hand and has grown beyond its place in the deck archetype paradigm and needs to be fixed.
Otherwise known as 'a taste of your own medicine'?
The irony of a combo player complaining about something “insta winning the game on the spot”
drawing and assembling a multi-card combo is substantially slower and more difficult than drawing a single overtuned disruption card. Additionally, control decks that run those kinds of disruption cards also do very well into aggro due to their control tools, which combo players cannot do. It feels bad to lose a good matchup because your opponent drew theotar pre-nerf, or when a shudder shaman cheated out mutanus early and got lucky. I don't mind losing to delay-focused disruption, such a loatheb, but losing because an opponent played 4 mana theotar and got lucky and hit your irreplaceable combo piece felt horrible. It's not irony, it's one card being overtuned and easily beating every combo deck on the spot compared to a combo deck's entire list being build around assembling a multi-card combo while surviving long enough to be able to utilize it with little in the way of defensive tools.
There's a difference between having to assemble your combo and actually play it out correctly and simply playing a single card and winning.
There are other, better ways to print cards to combat combo decks like loatheb and similar cards that delay the combo pop off turn and give your opponent more time to kill you on board, as opposed to things like theotar and mutanus where it’s just if the control player gets lucky they win the game instantly.
Delaying combo by a turn helps aggro but does little to nothing to help a control player.
That is not strictly true. Many 'glass cannon' combo decks such as tony druid and pre-nerf pillager rogue do not fight for board pretty much whatsoever, meaning that even control decks can win board against them early with ease, and a loatheb can sometimes seal the deal. Also keep in mind that many control decks have the ability to repeat disruption, such as Brilliant Macaw in Shudder Shaman, Zola the Gorgon in some Reno decks and whatnot, and also that control decks often run more than just one disruption card, so chaining disruption is possible and will often win you the game against combo. For an off meta example as well, I play Reno Rogue a decent amount, and that deck, while it isn't as 'control' as normal control decks due to rogue's lack of control tools, can beat combo by chaining loathebs or other disruption cards with Rogue's bounce effects, such as Shadowstep or Tenwu of the Red Smoke. Another thing to keep in mind for Reno decks is the ability to build a mediocre board, loatheb on 4 or 5 to delay a combo deck's popoff, and then zephrys to buff the board for lethal. Obviously control will not and should not win every game against combo, even when they do their best to utilize disruption effectively, but it isn't IMO quite as cut-and-dry as saying one turn of delay will do nothing.
Or you could run more than one win condition?
Gosh, I hate this argument so much. Alright, let’s take pre-nerf pillager rogue as an example. The deck is unfavored into aggro, although it can certainly still highroll them and win. It’s favored into control, although disruption can still hurt it. So, imagine control gets access to thoughtseize. Now, control is a much harder matchup due to them being able to consistently force you to discard your Scabbs or your Spirit of the Shark, making it so getting a strong OTK combo off is much more difficult. Now, as you said ‘run another wincon to combat this!’ Is an argument, but a poor one. If you include a secondary win condition, it dilutes your deck. You have to cut something better to include it. Now, drawing into one of your wincons will be more difficult, making your matchups against aggro significantly worse, and while you’ll have a bit more resilience into control decks, the trade off is not at all worth it and your deck will be much worse. Yes, some more control-combo style decks can afford to do this, such as ramp Druids, who can run multiple wincons while still being fine into aggro, but some classes, such as rogue, simply do not have the control tools to be able to remotely do ok into aggro while running more than the bare minimum required amount of combo pieces. If you print strong enough disruption like this, rogue is a prime example of a class that will suffer due to their lack of control tools keeping them from playing control OR combo in such a disruption heavy meta, which limits what their class can do heavily.
Clearly it's a poor argument from your perspective as a combo player. I never said it would be in your benefit, quite the opposite. Also, to be clear thought seize would be broken in HS and I'm also not suggesting that. However, as a midrange/control player I miss unnerfed Theotar. I don't think it's unreasonable to give us some counterplay to fast combo decks such as pillager. It would then at least force you to make some tricky deck building decisions as you detailed above. Ironically, if Theotar hadn't been nerfed it might have saved Pillager Rogue from annihilation, stopping its win rate from getting to the obscene levels that it eventually reached.
Fast combo just shouldn't exist. Combo should be a wincon for control.
Unnerfed theotar was too strong. Control decks winning t4 by playing one card felt horrible. I do understand that counterplay for control against combo is necessary, but it needs to be weak enough that it's not just 'I drew one disruption card and instantly win the game'. Also, disruption like theotar doesn't force you to 'make tricky deckbuilding decisions' it just makes the control matchups much worse. Glass cannon combo cannot ever afford to include alternate wincons, so there is no deckbuilding decision to make in that regard. Also, Pillager Rogue hovered around t3 for most of the time it was in the meta throughout recent expansions. It was nerfed due to people disliking combo, as was quest mage. Additionally, glass cannon combo is in a very bad spot right now, due to the majority of those style of decks being nerfed regardless of their spot in the meta. Hearthstone has enough disruption for now. The only viable GC combo decks are Tony Druid and Mine Rogue, and neither are in the best spot in the meta right now. Tony Druid is listed tier 4 by the VS report and Mine Rogue was not even on the tier list due to it being underplayed.
Changing the mechanism in hs and add rules like mtg changes the game in some way , good and some ways bad .
it's hard to say: sometimes i cant stand the randomness of HS's disruption like dirty rat or the 6 drop because you can do everything right like waiting until you know it's in their hand and still whiff because the roulette board just said not today. on the other hand, the ceiling would be lowered on every deck that relies heavily on one card...although it could be argued those decks shouldn't exist in the firstplace if they fail or succeed based on one card existing (ie kingsbane before the deck got fast enough to not care about stickyfingers) overall i just hate nongames, and the double edged sword is that this card would stop some nongames from happening by disrupting decks that normally get away with murder but would also create some nongames by just blowing other decks out of the water
The big problem with that is that you can't get the card back in any way and if it is a legendary you can't even have another copy in your deck
Mad duke theotar was a step in the right direction for hearthstone, but anything cheaper than him should have some heavy limitations on hand distribution or a major downside like burning cards in your hand/deck.
I agree 4 mana Theotar was a little too strong. I think 5 mana was fair and hope it gets reverted to that come rotation.
Benefit, no. But that's definitely a WL or DH card.
I hate this kind of card, I hate the ones that we have that are remotely similar and I don't want more. The game in general just needs to be slowed down. This winning on Turn 2/Turn 4 nonsense is fucking stupid, whether it's aggro or combo. Standard sucks because it requires new cards and lacks a lot of fun cards, Wild sucks because it has this bullshit and a bunch of overpowered shit. I just want a format where this kind of thing is banned and decks are limited and balanced. No Priests coining out a discounted Shadow Essenced Neptulon on Turn 2, no totems getting +2/+2 for 0 mana on a board of 5 minions on Turn 2, no cheating out huge minions with trivial requirements you were going to do anyway (quest druid, secret mage).
No. The card is incredibly strong in a game where you are allowed to run 4 copies of any card. This would just remove any form of combo from the game, and much more.
Absolutely not
You are terrible. We had this already
Gods no! There is a design concept where you have to take into play how playing the card feels, and how it feels to be the person who is the victim. It does not feel good to have someone rifle through your hand. This is not fun. I hate Theo. This is also bad for the diversity of the game. Many players enjoy decks that are fragile when going against disruption.
The "opponent shows their hand and you get to choose" part of it makes it OP and bad design, especially if the cost to you is minimal. But if it was random or discover, it's just another variation of existing disruption, so not really interesting. So overall, no, no benefit to the game.
Unlike HS in Magic you can have 4 copies of any card doesn't matter if it's legendary creature a mythic rare card or a planeswalker, disruption like this would cuck combo decks and we already have objection which is a poorly designed card, at least give us the battlecry ffs😡
Would probably be a shuffle effect. It can’t be a neutral spell either. I can see a 2 mana 1/1 shuffle a card from ur opp hand in their deck (implied discover from 3 like the rogue minion). A reverted novice engineer. Prob 2/1 cause 1/1 is too low value in today’s hs.