Very cool change, congrats. There is a major impact, though: games will take longer now. It was one thing moving into a shrine with 50% HP, it will be a whole other to move to it full life, specially after transfiguring. And in this regard, I think this change will require extreme AVALUATION, because destroying the shrine is a win condition, after all. Either way, I approve the change but will guys will have to keep BOTH EYES on it in this first month.
Most games end as a result of surrenders, or by quick shrine kills from overwhelming force. I think the instances in which the extra shrine HP matters will be limited -- similar to those situations in with the ToH healing actually matters.
I wouldn't like to see shrines become less vulnerable. the threat of a shrine attack brings a lot of strategic play to the game. Even if I don't actually attack the shrine I can position in a way that forces someone out of a font turtle for example. I don't like the idea of that being lessened. I also think shrine rush should be an option. So, I guess I would like either a reduction in shrine HP or perhaps a reduction in shrine defense, or perhaps more spread of scorn.
The more i think on this Mulligan change the more i like it. Having shrines and avatars with 100% HP will be more fun, right now if your shrine gets rushed you are forced on an immediate response or get killed within 3 turns.
This, so much this. Turtle fest isnt fun either. I, for one, always like to threat the shrine when in a standoff. Avatars being more HP intact takes that away.
Maybe it's time to remove disease/poison immunity along with the damage reduction offered to shrines via spells/champs/etc... (also poison/disease immunity from relics, especially if there is no real reason)
Fortify and the +HP on Transfigure is going away. (They were mostly added to "counter" the Shrine Scry damage and still allow Transfigure to be meaningful.) Immunities to Disease and Poison is an interesting thing - it's one of those "flavor" things but realistically doesn't have a gameplay/mechanical justification. Spell/Damage resistance is staying (those are mostly more relevant in certain "one-rounding" scenarios).
Yeah, while i quite like how scry works, I think it is a fair trade-off for not needing to scry. Also reduces complexity to turn two features (scry and fortufy) into one (mulligan).
I think the two versions have only a vague equivalence, but if Sok thinks it's a suitable exchange, I have no particular argument.
Wow that was a good solution to the problem, kudos. Although, you could even let the +HP stay since you dont have fortify anymore, I feel - fortify going away is already pretty huge as is. I'm actually excited Scorn is now a meaningful drawback.
I would like to propose the trade of removing both poison and disease immunity for a flat dmg reduction to ranged attacks (-3 final dmg to ranged attks to shrine), only on shrine mode and it goes away when tranfiguring.
That's a quick way to doom your game and right after coming up with such a smart idea like the mulligan too. One thing fixed one thing broken.
With this change being implemented soon, can we possibly expect some changes to the spell “price of victory” ? Now without shrine scry for both players the PoV is getting relatively too expensive. The amount of damage it will cause to your UD shrine is bigger (in general not including special cases – generally speaking) and it will put you in a much more vulnerable position compared to your opponent. What if All units lose 5 HP instead of heal 5 HP instead of dealing damage to the shrine / avatar ?
Thanks for the insightful response mate. I appreciate your opinion but I still think that the price (relatively speaking) is getting higher for the same outcome. I explained why i think so in my post
