Well, with Frozen’s current turn I do see how reducing the stats of Hyperion might as well do the trick. But this will then not weaken the insane Tric & TD & Max flicker combos.
But doing both stats nerfs before we increase the gold cost of TD might indeed be worth a shot.
For reference - 12 instant damage with a 4/4 body and a Midband Max for only 9 Gold… That’s just not very balanced…
So far we nerfed mainly combinations and single cards. Going now one step further makes sense. Present, finesse and peace are the strongest tech2 and should be dealed with in one shot.
Ooft a timely example indeed
I still think TD gold is the cleanest and most direct burst reduction (and the above game does really showcase how cheap that burst is) but I’m happy to try @dwarddd’s suggestion given his extensive experience with purple.
Only questions would then be, do we nerf both Hyp and Tric at once? And should it be hyp to 3/5, 4/4 or 3/4 in the first iteration?
I think the Finesse and Peace changes you summarised @zango seem fine to move to the next ruleset
Basically all I’m saying is that I think the stats nerf is also v clean and effective, and where nerfing TD makes me sad and want to play Present less (and definitely pair Max with other specs less 
), nerfing the stats make me grit my teeth and go ‘sick, more constraints on my favourite lil puzzle, exciting to test all the new precise boundaries and matchups’
To answer your question, considering we need to appease the people who want to move TD to 3g, let’s go hard and do 3/4 hype, 3/2 tric?
Hyperion at 3/4 is way way worse. I think it’s ok to just remove a little health. Small changes folks, let’s not over correct.
Yes I get mad about stuff but I don’t want it to be unplayable!
Yeah I think 4/4 is actually perfect. The problem with Hyperion isn’t the 5 attack, it’s that it can survive most encounters and flicker back with present tricks. If it can’t survive as easily I think it isn’t as much if a nuisance
Awesome, seems like we now have many voices that prefer -0/-1 to Hyperion over +1g for TD, what I’m not sure it’s what the majority thinks about in parallel going -0/-1 for Tric.
I would definitely prefer to also nerf Tric in this first iteration of nerfing present.
There are just so many games, where an early Tric flicker turn seals the deal without even needing Hyperion. And one defense less at least provides some theoretical chance to easier remove this tech 2 unit from the table in order to at least prevent flickering in the next turn.
I think we need to do both at once so we properly target our nerf at TD combos/value, as opposed to just at Hyperion
So let’s try to come to a conclusion for the next tournament:
| Nerfs | |
|---|---|
| Vandy | Remove resist 1 at midband |
Midband changes to “①,  , Discard a card → Fetch any non-ultimate Demonology spell from your codex, reveal it, then put it in your hand.” |
|
| Garth | Reduce midband stats to 2/3 |
| Deteriorate | Increase cost to 1 |
| Ability changes to “Cannot target illusions. Give a unit -1/-1 until end of turn.” | |
| Lich’s Bargain | Base damage increased from 4 to 5 |
| Flagstone Garrison | Ability changes to “Your units can no longer have haste. Whenever you play a unit, draw a card” |
| Pirate Gunship | Remove obliterate 2 |
| Dark Pact | Increase cost to 1 |
| Bird’s Nest | Change Upkeep to “Resummon one lost bird (max: 2)” |
| Battle Suits | Change to apply to “Purple Soldiers and Mystics” |
| Might of Leaf and Claw | → If there are at least 5 growth runes on this, your heroes and units get +3/+3 until your next upkeep |
| Buffs | |
|---|---|
| Troq | Midband at 3, maxband at 7 |
| Modify midband ability to “Attacks: deal 1 damage to one of that opponent’s buildings” | |
| Modify maxband ability to Overpower | |
| The Boot | Modify text to “Discard a card, then destroy a tech 0, I or II unit” modify type from “Spell - Debuff” to “Spell” |
| Intimidate | Modify text to “Give a unit or hero -4/-1 until your next turn.” |
| General’s Hammer | Cost reduced to 2 |
| New Nerfs | |
|---|---|
| Flagstone Garrison | change text to “The first three times each turn you play a unit from hand, draw a card” (instead of the above defined haste removal) |
| Maestro | change text to "your virtuosos cost 2 less to play and gain ‘exhaust: deal 2 damage to a building’ " |
| Hyperion | change stats to 4/4 |
| Tricycloid | change stats to 3/2 |
Please do voice any objections
Thanks @zango
Can I clarify if the new nerf for Garrison is intended to replace the haste nerf or be added to it? I presume the latter but it’s not clear to me.
I’ve always thought that the haste nerf was necessary in light of burning legion but that the wording we’ve been using is clunky and unnecessarily broad. My ideal would be that it doesn’t prevent you casting Now! Or Bloodlust and that it doesn’t hinder a Tech Lab based strategy like Peace+Blood.
I have a couple of suggestions that I strongly prefer to the current wording:
I think both of these offer the anti-haste we need for balance without overstepping onto other combos (especially the latter). Adding the phrase “played from hand” ensures that the loss of haste processes each time a unit is played and not just as a one time thing.
I second reverting General’s Hammer to its vanilla cost. The proper order of things is to get Garrison balanced and see what the new normal looks like for Peace before we buff it.
I second your thoughts completely. I was also lost, when I realized that we have contradicting wordings with the garrison I edited my post above to say it replaces the haste nerf. But my reasoning was soley to have a clear statement that then can be discussed. Now thinking a bit more about it I also think that we should have both nerfs aggregated. And I also don’t like the old wording as it prohibits Drakk’s maxband and other bonuses (my understanding would be that the active player decides how to stack the triggers and therefore can decide to let Drakk’s maxband resolve after haste was removed before). I would be fine with both versions, that you suggested.
Remind me again about why burning legion was too good? I think I only played against it once and I don’t recall exactly why it was worse than any other garrison haste strategy.
it is twofold (plus a significant consistency gain):
All in all it’s just incredibly fast, aggressive and consistent.
edit: and as P2 it has a lot of options for creating an early counter punch which leads to P1 then not being able to go all out on the aggressiv road which then again leads to P2 being easier able to stabilize and start the counter punch for real.
Sounds like there are a lot of moving parts. Is garrison really the lynchpin, or is it just a win more?
Moby and myself played a ton of matches with it. In many were situations where a Meta route also probably would have won the game, but in each situation Garrison was the safe win (analyzing 3-4 turns of best-case/worst-case scenarios) while Meta had some potential of not making it. Hence I would say we optimized our strategy with the deck into creating the circumstances into getting an absurdly high win percentage out of the Garrison strategy. We ended up winning a tournament each with not a single loss, if memory serves well.
Hmm I am recalling those testing games occurring.
Essentially I want to keep Garrison fun and interesting and try to keep rules text to a minimum (cards that obviously have rules text to avoid broken interactions irk me; it just means the design isn’t elegant enough elsewhere).
Slight typo here, should be “cost 2 less to play” instead.
An alternative, single clause Garrison that I had thought about was:
I think its still open to some abuse (play the cheap cards for draw then hit the opp with haste) but it is simpler
If we want simpler, would the following be too much of a nerf?
Whenever you play a unit from your hand, you may exhaust it. If you do, draw a card.
It would mean you don’t have to track haste loss.
That’s actually a very cool idea as it also tremendously helps against Garrison’s biggest advantage: if you have enough gold, you can just too easily flood the patrol.
I would be up for testing this version, but as I am either way unlikely to play Peace in the upcoming tournament this might not be as much of an commitment on my side as I’d like.