Just because something is coincidentally nerfed doesn't mean it needs a compensatory buff. Sok wants to change ToH, apparently, because the loss of Scry changes how that rune works in a fundamental way; other runes may get better or worse as a result of the mulligan changes -- many will -- but that doesn't mean they need alterations to maintain their present relative power. PoV will become slightly more expensive in one respect, but still provides the same nora:value ratio, which, in the case of aggressive decks like UD, is what matters. I doubt that the mulligan/scry change will in any way affect its play frequency.
Okay, let me put it this way, I don't want your OP version of Price if Victory in my faction, I much, much prefer it the way it is, and the removal of Shrine Scrying will not in nerf it in any appreciable way.
Makes sense mate. Lets see how things go after the change but u do make a solid point. @SPiEkY I was just making a suggestion. Didn't mean to hurt "your" faction bro. But killing the topic with a personal opinion is not a way to discuss things
Your not really being very convincing. If you think it's over powered you can explain why, but no need to get defensive about it. And yes, that is an opinion- that is until we get some actual hard data on the subject. No more of an opinion then his, but still an opinion. I don't want to make a negative relationship with a guild member, but at the same time I can't stand by and watch such a discussion take place because of one.He wasn't saying anything negative or trying to make anything ridiculously powerful. There was no reason to get upset with him for proposing a change to a single rune.
Sorry if my tone seemed upset. I'm on a mobile device and can't type long responses to things. And, frankly, I've already had dozen of conversations about why Price of Victory is currently fine (and, in my opinion, currently slightly OP), so I didn't really want to have another.
Alright, thanks. You just sounded really... off there. TBH I thought something was different. Thanks for the explenation.
Fair enough mate. I thought i was annoying you so much with my suggestion. I'll look up PoV discussions and check your opinion there. Cheers
Thanks for bringing up POV, @H3II, I hadn't thought of that one being potentially affected. That said, @kalasle is correct in that I am considering a change to ToH because of the very specific nature of the way it functions. PoV, I believe, doesn't quite fall into that category, as while the absolute cost of the rune is likely to increase (total HP reduced), the relative cost is a bit more ambiguous since you will be left with more HP on average (despite it costing more HP outright). I know I'd rather have 35 HP left instead of 25 HP, regardless of how much the spell is responsible! The more important factor seems to be that the loss of Fortify does mean you don't get a turn of respite (if you so choose). In other words, while the BALANCE of the rune changes, the function and use cases largely remain the same, while ToH, without Shrine Scry, runs into a lot more theoretical situations where it does nothing (though based on player feedback it isn't that big a deal either). PoV costing more HP changes how dangerous it is to use it, but there are no situation where the extra HP cost stops it from functioning at all. Either way, I think it doesn't change enough to warrant a change right now at first glance, but it is something to consider.
Like the remaining HP concept. Yeah it makes sense ! and tbh PoV always had the element of risk to it (shrine HP reduction, which made it more exciting to use) and without the fortify option it sounds even more exciting. I like that
Totally understand the spell/damage resistance. As for the "flavor" things I think that ship has already sailed with the loss of disease immunity, boon of the undead, Construct Immunities, and disease/poison bombs/breaths being the same nora costs as respective damage types. The only thing potentially holding this back is possibly the basic Attack: Disease/Poison being 0 nora instead of 2 which may not be the case depending on how up to date poxbase is. In either case I don't think that 2 nora savings on basic attacks offsets the global immunity on shrines/relics for those two damage types. One could argue about amp but frankly fire/frost is way more prevalent and developed.
Perhaps a better way at looking at POV is not if POV should be changed but Blood for Mortar buffed? I mean UD does have some other things like the Scorched Dwarf that can sit at the shrine and heal it/mitigate POV's cost. I'd almost rather synergy be increased then POV just changed due to the slight interaction.
Just to stay in topic and give some feedback on the new system. Non-highlander decks seems to be the way to go after the change, at least for decks that aims to early-mid game. Also, if your whole strategy is based around a specific combo of 4+ runes, good luck with it; scry abilities may help, but only if you get your rune in the starting hand. I don't think this is bad... just different from the old style.
It's horrid. Take a typical Salaman set up. You need to get certain champs out to make it work - say the Appraiser. So often, the games over by the time I've pulled it out New system seems super reliant on what you're hand gives you.
