Blizzard Cloak

Discussion in 'Savage Tundra' started by Sokolov, Aug 30, 2016.

  1. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    A thread in GD morphed into a discussion about Blizzard Cloak so I wanted to get some opinions here.

    I still see it in play, personally, so I am not saying I WILL change it, but the questions here are as follows:
    • How do you feel about this spell? Is it shoebox? Decent? Auto?
    • Would you trade cost for additional utility on this spell? Specifically, add 10 or 15 for a hidden clause?
    • What do you think about the proposed alternatives? Do they make the spell more interesting include?
    Blizzard Cloak (CURRENT)
    Nora: 40 - For 8 turns, the next 3 attacks against target champion misses. If the target champion occupies a snow or ice space, this spell refunds 10 nora.

    Blizzard Cloak (ALTERNATIVE TYPE A)
    Nora: 40 or 45 - For 8 turns, the next 3 attacks against target champion misses. If the target champion occupies a snow or ice space, this effect is hidden until triggered.

    Blizzard Cloak (ALTERNATIVE TYPE B)
    Nora: 40 or 45 - For 8 turns, the next 2 attacks against target champion misses. This effect is hidden until triggered. If the target champion occupies a snow or ice space, the next 3 attacks misses instead.
     
    JellyBerry likes this.
  2. darklord48

    darklord48 Forum Royalty

    You can't hide AP gain, unless perhaps you gain the AP at the end of your opponent's turn.
     
  3. Goyo

    Goyo I need me some PIE!

    It needs to be hidden in my opinion, and 3 attacks might be too much. Maybe 6 turns?

    I deleted that post. I didn't like what I was saying.
     
    darklord48 likes this.
  4. JellyBerry

    JellyBerry Forum Royalty

    It isn't bad really, in an ideal world I find the investment to be worth it, the problem lies on the fact that the effect not being hidden as of currently gives my opponent room for preparation, limiting the instances in which I can use it in a position which provides an advantage over my opponent. The premise of having attacks miss is strong but it being blatantly obvious to my opponent can be a major detractor when I consider casting it. It is worth noting that I would only run BC if I had a few high cost runes to begin with, and realistically at that point I'd most likely pick healing hand over it.

    Healing hand can potentially sink more than 3 attacks and might provide an advantage thanks to the 'surprise' factor if the opponent doesn't account for it, screwing over his/her positioning and giving me the chance to punish it. This is how the old version of BC used to work for the most part, whilst it was possible to counter it after the first attack, the first miss provided a positioning advantage which was important. It's the same for spells like Whispers, not only you benefit from the attack missing but you can punish the badly positioned champion, giving you the advantage.

    The way BC is now it's hard to justify casting it over saving Nora for a deploy, because you usually want to use it on an unit within the opponents threat range, if they know the spell has been cast then it might either be bypassed by other abilities or played around until it can be dealt with, two approaches which are different depending on the theme you are facing or the champ you have cast it on.

    Would not under any circumstances. Then again my playstyle when it comes to ST comes down to deploying above anything else and only use spells if they either get me kills, or prevents them from getting one, BC belongs to the latter, but there are many other runes I would pick for this kind of utility over the current blizzard cloak.


    Once again, this seems the most reasonable to me.

    All in all, this is not me demanding a change as much as it is kind of denoting what it would take for me to play it. Even in the form suggested above the inclusion would greatly depend on what is being played (as it is now) as well of the cost/functionality of the champions involved in the deck.

    Hidden mechanic turns this spell from something merely defensive to something potentially offensive. If your intention is for it to stay solely defensive then leave the spell as is.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2016
  5. IronStylus

    IronStylus I need me some PIE!

    I feel like, however, the spell could be potentially more interesting to play being a hidden effect, it's not a time to change this spell. It's more or less fine, while there are many many more things that aren't.
    I will say though, that I would vote for option B instead of current anyways.
    I will show my thought process about decision of casting this spell:

    1. Does the opponent have direct counter to this spell at all? Does he have it on board? (Here if it's anything with precision or it's FF ST I would answer yes, he has and not cast it at all or avoid the precision unit)
    2. Giving all the situation on map, do I need defensive power on specific champion for the next three attacks?
    3. How much nora can I spend to defend him?
    4. Is the champion standing on ice or by moving him is it possible he was on ice? How much AP do I need to spend to get to ice?
    If 1. says no, 2. says yes and 3. says it's worth spending 40-45 nora in this situation, then there are situations like:

    My champ isn't on ice/snow and he can't by any means or it's not worth moving him there, then I will lose 10 nora I could have refunded - nothing much, point 3. gets revised and I recalculate if it's still worth casting it or not.
    With option A - I still have the same power to defend him, but I lose the hidden effect, which gives me the expectation that opponent will hit me at least once.
    With option B I lose raw power and nora efficiency, which is 1 more missed attack, but I have the hidden effect, where I expect my opponent to hit me at least once.

    Now what opponent might think before attacking if it gets changed to option A or B:
    Excluding all questions like 'Does he have this spell in his BG?' and 'Does he have 40-45 nora in bank to use this spell?'
    It leaves questions like:
    with option A - 'Did he use it or not? He's clearly standing on ice, so I won't see the effect, but I'm pretty sure he has cast it, because he expects me to hit the champion and he needs to defend it.'
    with option B it's more subtle - 'I won't see the effect anyways, but would he use it if it cost him 1 more missed attack?'
    with current option it's obvious if I used the spell or not and it's up to me how I value the 10 nora refund.

    tldr; option B is the most interesting out of three, because it makes the game more subtle and creates harder choice for opponent, while still creating hard choice for the player. I'm not sure ST should have another hidden effect spell besides snowblind though.
    Also, a small typo: 'the next 3 attacks miss*' instead of 'misses'
     
  6. Pedeguerra

    Pedeguerra I need me some PIE!

    Im sorry but this line right here disqualified your hole post, at least in my eyes.
    I've expressed my feelings already on this spell and I feel OPTION B should be implemented.
     
    Braxzee likes this.
  7. IronStylus

    IronStylus I need me some PIE!

    Yeah that's a thought that came to my mind after I wrote everything. Let me get this clear: I'm not sure if they need a new hidden spell or not, but it would make the game more interesting in this case anyways. I guess there could be hidden clause to BC too. I'm just not sure about this. But if I had to decide, it's option B out of three.
     
    Pedeguerra likes this.
  8. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    This is my default stance too. I could tweak things endlessly based on individual opinions of people, but there are priorities.

    That said, this isn't a rework so much as a small tweak from the technical perspective, so it should be a relatively simple change. But yea, there are certainly more worthy targets for a rework in this game from a macro perspective.
     
    IronStylus likes this.
  9. Braxzee

    Braxzee I need me some PIE!

    I think Pedeguerra is looking at the MACRO for ST. ST is about surprise, hidden strategy, Health, and slowing the opponent down to strike down their shrine. ST should have the hidden effect in snow terrain, for I live in Alaska and the weather here changes dramatically from sunny skies to where you can not see the hood of your car all of a sudden due to ICE FOG. It gets that cold that fog freezes. You have to slow way down or you will get surprised by a moose (Yeah a massive animal hidden by weather) , blown off the road entirely due to wind gusts or another car or a instant snow bank cos 4 feet of snow just appeared out of now where and this happens in minutes. I look at UD being the sacrificing trickster faction so I do not expect that aspect to be in ST and the same as FW the summoning ant healing Gurus and so forth...

    Hidden spell effects in ST playing in snow terrain just feels and makes sense in a MACRO fashion.
     
  10. Braxzee

    Braxzee I need me some PIE!

    ST should have more hidden snow terrain effects. That is looking at it from the MACRO level
     
  11. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    What has he said that suggests this? He has mostly just said that he likes hidden, that RD is better and has hidden, and that he thinks BC should also have hidden because it's shoebox otherwise. In none of his statements do I detect that he thinks in general ST should have more hidden effects (maybe he does think this, but he hasn't said it to my knowledge).

    Maybe I missed something - feel free to provide me a quote :)

    ~

    That said, I do agree that I have developed a bit of a "stealth/hidden" subtheme for snow/terrain stuff - I mean, I designed Blizzard Cloak originally, after all :)
     
  12. Braxzee

    Braxzee I need me some PIE!

    I was reading in between lines and some other posts he has mentioned on. It does follow a MACRO type look level on things even though he has not specifically stated it. I know he is focused on BC , but he is seeing the stealth/hidden aspect being removed slowly from the faction and this from IronStylus I'm not sure ST should have another hidden effect spell besides snowblind though. does validate the concern of this theme being diminished in ST.
     
  13. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Where did he say this? I don't see how any of what pede has said suggests he feels hidden/stealth is being slowly removed from the faction.

    (Even if he did say it, I don't think this is true at all, especially since ST just got a Nightfall/Trickster champion.)

    Regardless, IronStylus expressing an off-hand opinion about hidden spells in ST shouldn't negate his entire post which was mostly talking about how BC with hidden plays out and that he likes it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2016
  14. Braxzee

    Braxzee I need me some PIE!

    That's cool I am glad hidden/stealth is not being removed or no intention of not adding more to the faction. Like I said I was reading in between the lines on it. I guess I am off on it. :oops:
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2016
  15. Goyo

    Goyo I need me some PIE!

    I would definitively want to.
     
  16. Aquifn

    Aquifn Member

    It'd be cool to flat out have spells/champs that create persistent or lasting weather effects that have cool effects. From random terrain change, to making champions/spells behave entirely differently.

    But as for the question, I also support Option B the most. However I don't understand how it'd be equal to or more expensive than Righteous Deflection, while doing less for us. Heck, I don't understand the cost right now in comparison
     
  17. JellyBerry

    JellyBerry Forum Royalty


    Besides the hidden clause (old and proposed versions) they don't share the same functionality and do not provide the same advantages when played in the field. So despite being the most common comparison out there for whatever reason I don't think they are even comparable.

    One provides ranged immunity for a couple of turns and the other has attacks miss if the opponent has no immediate counters, that's of course not to say the first can't be countered although it has more clear limitations. However, despite both spells serving the purpose of mitigating damage to an extent and sharing (potentially) a hidden clause the comparison will always be a stretch due to how they play out and the context in which they reside.

    If you put 2~3 attacks missing next to ranged immunity obviously the immunity will seem better in both practice and paper, but you're then not measuring BC with an actually comparable spell such as Healing Hand, which might create a misled argument for the rune's power.
     
  18. Aquifn

    Aquifn Member

    I guess I put more value on immunity to damage + damage rebound than you do. While I understand that BC works on melee attacks, I don't see that as enough of a boon to make it worth more than RD. Especially with the limited misses.

    And how is a hidden heal a 'actually comparable spell' over RD?
     
  19. JellyBerry

    JellyBerry Forum Royalty

    Hidden BC has offensive capabilities that come through positioning, unless you are running only ranged champions against IS then RD most likely won't. Again you are comparing two different spells with different practical uses in different factions and somehow expect them to measure up to one another or have them costed according to their functionality in isolation.

    No doubt immunity is better (in most stand off situations to prevent ranged damage), but BC is not supposed to provide it and never will, which means the way you use BC isn't even remotely similar as you would RD, and therefore isn't mispriced for what you get in return whenever you cast it. The main boom resides on both being initially hidden, but that's as far as similarities and how they play after goes.

    Healing Hand is hidden and sinks attacks, thus preventing the death of a champion. The number of attacks could be on par with BC or even more, and is currently costed at 45? Nora. Both are often unaccounted for which leads to punishable positioning by the opponent, giving the spell offensive capabilities beyond the defensive aspect.

    Bare in mind this assessment takes into account either old BC or the proposed option B, not the current version.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2016
    Aquifn likes this.
  20. Braxzee

    Braxzee I need me some PIE!

    RD is way more useful and far better than BC. The biggest value is turn ratio to cool down. BC provides a half turn of protection at best due to your opponent is not dumb the 8 turn deal is a non factor. RD you have it for 6 turns and the spell is close to coming off of cool down. RD provides counter DMG of which most of the time has a positive effect. Rarely it can have a negative/neutral effect (The only way I know of is Ice X eater throwing ranged frost). BC can have a negative effect in more ways like your opponent uses RD and attacks your champ with counter strike from range.

    Anyways Not having to worry about range champs and cos damage to them is very powerful in POX. Listen to how KF players cry about arrow eaters and cry out for arrow eater nerfs. Not only does RD reflect the attack it also makes the range unit eat it.

    AND NO IS or UD players I am not saying RD or arrow eaters need to be nerfed :)
     

Share This Page