If summon swarm is to remain at 60 Nora, ant needs to lose swarm base

Sorry ST but it's about that time

 

I get that the spell is OP (too cheap) but if it doesn't have swarm, what then would be the purpose of the spell?

I'd say give it some nora and give the ant Init2 so it cannot double attack without AP gen.

 

If the ant kills, it gets on copy and that's it. I'm looking at locust vs poor skellies as well.

 

I dont even like ST , they are all Ice eating morons, They don't even put cream on their ice!


But taking swarm away from summon ant is not a solution.

 

I think it just needs to be nerfed a bit. Swarm in general is too strong. I would just reduce their hp or allow only the original champ to swarm and reducing its nora cost in return.

 

I think he means remove it from base and shift Swarm to upgrades, even as the only option. Because of how swarm works, this would still allow the spell to produce 1-2 ants, but would prevent the ants from balling further.

It's also a serious problem with how Swarm works, because the value of the ability on base differs enormously from the value of the ability on upgrades. Makes the nora pricing weird.

 

I'm not even going into the merit whether the spell needs a nerf or not, because it does (and I'd probably go with a nora increase first, then go from there).
However, I just want to touch a little on this statement here. I've been on HS a lot and I've come to realize that some mechanics are important to exist so they can "counter" other important mechanics, even if only in theory. For example, Big Game Hunter on HS keeps people from spamming 8 damage units on their bgs, because the trade favor immensely the player running BGH. So, even if you don't run it, it keeps bgs in check by the mere threat of a person having him there.
I'd say it's the same thing with swarm. On this cheap champ spam meta you guys created, the potential existence of counters is what keeps the game from being completely dominated by moga and other summon heavy bgs.
Even if I don't have swarm on my bg, the mere threat of it existing there keeps players in check whether or not they should have their bgs revolve mostly around cheap champ spam or whatever.
So I'd go as far as saying that nerfing swarm would be a terrible idea, just like Backlash being nerfed was. I dont think its going to happen, but I just wanted to share some thoughts.
"Oh look, Pede is being all nice and helpful again". No I'm not, firk off.

 

But the problem is that BGH removes the ability to run bigs in hearthstone. The only bigs ever run competitivly must have battlecries or low costs (giants).

7 attack is horrible as a result of BGH and is why people joke about "nerfing" Dr Boom to 6 attack.

Brian Kibler wrote a good article about this: http://bmkgaming.com/the-problem-of-big-game-hunter-ive-got-the-fun-in-my-sights/

If the counter is so strong and versitile that it drives the countee out of the meta, then it is problematic. This is why pox is moving away from sever summons and towards other counters like disbelief.

 

Well, he doesn't remove the ability to run bigs in HS, that's for sure. Specially considering that you have a deck limit of 2, so at most you'd be shutting down 2 over 7 attack units. How do you explain one of the most successful decks in the meta, Wallet Warrior, that runs no less than 5 legendary champs? I'd say the only thing keeping these kind of bgs to spam giants and whatnot till game is over is the fact that BGH is around. I mean, look at Dr. Boom - released as an auto include, all the bgs run it. What happened? Every bg has a BGH now, keeping Dr. Balanced in check.
Good discussion, but I don't want to hijack the post, so I will leave it as is.

 

Agreed. Which leads me to think that Pox should move away from the card game aspect, which won't happen in the current model, which then leads me to think that a Pox 2.0 would be heck of a success as long as it moves away from card games type.

 

Of gameplay? I don't think there is any, aside from drawing the actual cards.
However, the whole collectable aspect of the game is what I was mostly referring to, since it's impossible for anyone to have a decent collection of runes without spending tons of cash. Take me, for example. Over 6 years playing I only have a full collection (ST), while having 5 different bgs (30 runes) for other factions. And I consider myself a collector.
To be honest, if Pox looked more like Warcraft 3 - the king of strategy games - it would rock more, I feel. I have no idea on how that could be implemented and whatever, but Pox certainly "feels" more like Warcraft (resource management) than HS (card game).

 

If my post makes no sense is because I'm about to leave my job and go home and I english isnt my native language.

 

I hated Warcraft 3, if there had been a turn based way to play it, it would have been amazing. Too many units that benefited from micro management without the time to micro manage them.

 

Well, I personally loved it, but different tastes be different, I guess.
But yeah, imagine that game with a turn based way to play it: Pox 2.0. Sign me in!

 

I have no idea what a blind repeat model is, sorry.

Well, in that hypothetical situation I would probably go with answer number 2, but to be fair I have no idea where you are going with this.
I just find it funny that Pox is sold as a card game (at least that's how I stumbled upon it - I typed in google "Free Card Games Online" and Pox popped up), and you come here and say its more like a strategy game than a card game.