Hearthstone's first-ever card ban in constructed play has been announced and confirmed! Stealer of Souls is no longer welcome in the Wild format because of problematic interactions with Mal'Ganis and Violet Illusionist. Read on for the full patch notes.
This week's patch arrives tomorrow, June 16.
Quote From Blizzard The 20.4.2 patch, which will release on June 16, includes one update for Wild and two balance changes for Battlegrounds.
Wild Update
- Stealer of Souls has been banned in Wild.
Dev Comment: We've decided to ban Stealer of Souls in Wild, where it caused many games to stray too far away from the type of gameplay we’re aiming for. After deliberating on the appropriate action, we’ve decided to ban the card in order to maintain its current, and healthier, function in standard—as well as eliminate the problems caused in Wild. We do not have plans to ban many cards in the future. Bans will be reserved for cards creating extreme gameplay issues where there is no great solution for all formats. Since this is the first decision of its kind in Hearthstone, we'd love to hear your feedback. We’ll continue to monitor the card in all Modes and formats to determine if further action is needed elsewhere. When Stealer of Souls rotates into Wild, we’ll reposition it for the Wild environment and remove the ban. If there are any balance changes to Stealer of Souls before then, we’ll re-evaluate the ban.
Stealer of Souls will be eligible for a full dust refund for 2 weeks after the 20.4.2 patch goes live.
Battlegrounds Updates
Captain Flat Tusk
- Old: After you spend 3 Gold, gain a Blood Gem. → New: After you spend 4 Gold, gain a Blood Gem.
Kangor’s Apprentice
- Old: [Tavern Tier 6] 4 Attack, 8 Health → New: [Tavern Tier 5] 3 Attack, 6 Health
Bug Fixes & Game Improvements
- Fixed a bug that caused a copied Archdruid Naralex to give Dream cards to the wrong player.
- Fixed a bug where Lady Anacondra would not reduce the cost of Nature spells if she was already on the board when a Celestial Alignment was played.
- Fixed a bug with the reconnect feature on mobile.
- Fixed a bug that caused the Battlegrounds Rating to show as “0” when first opening the Player Profile.
- Fixed a bug that caused the Player Profile to show number of Battlegrounds first place finishes instead of Battlegrounds Top 4 finishes, as intended.
Comments
According to the threads on various forums such as Hearthpwn, Reddit and this website, apparently banning cards causes people to lose their ability to read basic English properly.
The stealer ban I think is mostly ridiculous. They just dont want to make the card unplayable right after it came out so people will spend money on the set without worrying about it. Watch. When it rotates it will be made either UNPLAYABLE or swapped out with a different card for warlock that is either garbage or plain boring and not worth playing at all(see icicle)
Whenever I played against this deck the combo kicked in on turns 6 or 7, which in wild you're already dead to aggro by then in most cases even in casual mode since people play secret mage in every format. Not to mention flamewaker mage, demon hunter face hunter or any other deck that will kill you on turn 4 or 5.
This is just another example of a ridiculous high roll that in an aggro deck they would let stay in the format and do nothing to hinder it. But since it's a combo deck th ey must get rid of it as soon as possible.
While I also don't like the fact they just chose to hide the problem instead of fixing it, or rather they knowingly chose to release an obviously imbalanced piece of mana cheating for Warlock in the first place for like the 6th time without learning their lesson (Skull, Voidcaller, Possessed Lackey, Bloodbloom, Darkglare, now this...about the only piece of mana cheating Warlock never abused is Cho'Gall), your critique is missing a crucial point.
There's a world of difference between an oppressive aggro deck, an oppressive control deck and an oppressive combo deck. Obviously, every time a deck is oppressive, it's a problem. It warps the meta into a state where decks that aren't good against the oppressive deck get completely pushed out of the game (think control vs Raza Priest...most control has vanished since the unnerf to Raza). Strategies that have a hefty foundation and history just disappear because their most common matchup is nearly unwinnable. And while on the surface of it the meta looks healthy and the oppressive deck may not even be boasting a great winrate, the reason is that the only decks that remain in the meta are the ones the deck struggles against. Everything else is completely removed from the statistics, it's not allowed to exist.
Now the difference, and the point I think you're missing, is that each type of oppressive deck has a different effect on the meta. If an aggressive deck is oppresive, it pushes all decks that aren't able to keep pace with it out of the meta. Slower aggro decks than it vanish. Control that can't keep the aggro under control get weeded out and only the hyper-streamlined ones remain, often without a wincon other than surviving. Combos that are either too slow (and thus die over time) or too greedy (not enough early defense) have to optimise into a state where they can keep pace, otherwise they also completely vanish (Quest Mage is a prime example). Midrange mostly disappears. While that is not a healthy meta, it's a meta that forces all decks to adapt a faster pace or die to the main threat. And since the main threat is mostly just minions being on board, that's a goal that can be achieved in a variety of ways.
But when a combo deck becomes oppressive, it's game over. Aggro once again has to go hyperaggro (think the current odd DH that consists of almost nothing but little fucking 1-drop assholes) to kill the combo before it goes off. All decks that can't do that vanish. Midrange has no chance, control has no chance, any slower combo decks have no chance. In fact unless the combo deck is specifically vulnerable to certain tech cards everyone has access to (which Explosive Runes isn't), most non-aggro decks have no chance. Literally the only way to combat an oppressive combo deck is to kill it fast or tech it out (and then you have to draw the tech card before they kill you, so it's not like it's guaranteed).
The devs have to react to oppressive combo decks much more quickly than to oppresive aggro decks, because combo decks being on top forces a supremely unhealthy meta that consists solely of aggro, tech decks and even faster combos.
This is basically a long winded way of saying that combo bad. And if combo was ever made playable then meta will only be aggro. Which is an absolute pile of BS. Where is this fantasy land where people only play aggro because they have to. And if they dont theyll face the might oppressive combo deck players that are out in abundance as hearthstones major playerbase.
Oh wait. The majority of the playerbase plays aggro because they want to. Not out of some sense of food chain or circle of life you think. It's becausetthey play on their phones.
And as for nerds to aggro. Okay. When.
Secret mage has been around for a long time, dark glare has been around for a long time. And even though it has gotten nerfed in the past it stays on top because of its 4 power overwhelming. Where is the nerf to these decks huh. Flamewaker mage, face hunter, demon hunter. Mozaki. Aggro gets voracious reader. Control gets 4 mana deal 2 damage aoe. Same from the game being in beta.
If you think there isnt a clear bias between the playstyles and favorable treatment towards a single type then you must be playing a different game. It must be nice.
Considering you're failing to even identify what an aggro deck is there is little point debating your bias. Your list of problematic aggro decks contains...33 % actual aggro decks. But hey, as long as you dislike it, I guess it qualifies as aggro to you. But you might as well be picking at random and your argument would be about as valid.
This is such a narrative I have unfortunately seen so often. I have seen decks been clasified as aggro not because they are actual aggro decks, but because they use the word aggro to demean the deck and the players.
Its good they bad a card thats problematic in wild but not in standard.
"After deliberating on the appropriate action, we’ve decided to ban the card in order to maintain its current, and healthier, function in standard"
So, does this mean they will ban the card on Standard too? I understand if they banned it in Wild mode, because there are too many card interactions, but why Standard?
What's the point on printing new cards in the future if they can't even at least test the interactions between new cards? Just print anything and improvise later? And why can't they just change the coding like people suggested so it reduce the health directly instead of taking damage? Not enough time? Not enough people?
Your reading comprehension blows. Nowhere do they say they're banning it in Standard.
Shall I quote it once more? Sure, why not.
'After deliberating on the appropriate action, we’ve decided to ban the card in order to maintain its current, and healthier, function in standard"
EDIT. Don't blame my perfect english just because they did stated it.
Sigh... Ok, let me spell it out for you, cause apparently you need that. They mention in the very first sentence that they're banning it in Wild. No mention of Standard. They follow with "After deliberating on the appropriate action, we’ve decided to ban the card in order to maintain its current, and healthier, function in standard". They reference the ban in Wild they've already mentioned with "we've decided to ban the card". They're NOT now saying "'we've decided to ban the card in Standard". They ARE saying they've decided to ban the card in Wild in order to MAINTAIN its current function in Standard. How can you tell? Simple logic. If they were banning it in both Wild and Standard, where exactly would the card be retaining its current, healthier function? IT WOULD BE BANNED IN ALL FORMATS.
Is it clear now?!
Try to actually read the words between "we've decided to ban the card in" and "standard", I guess?
"maintain its current...function in standard"
maintain: to continue to have; to keep in existence, or not allow to become less
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/maintain
The Kangor's Apprentice change I get. It's quite underwhelming so I hope that it finds a spot a Tier 5.
The Captain Flat Tusk nerf surprises me. Was the card that good? It was useful in specific situations but it didn't feel too powerful. Is there any explanation to why the card is nerfed?
Flat tusk was the best shard generator in the game and coupled with an Aggem Thorncurse it was the best scaling engine in battlegrounds. Throw in the boar for double shard effect and the tier 3 minion that lets you transfer shards to another minion and you can get triple digit cleave minions rather early if you hit an early triple and pull flat tusk.
The reason Flat tusk was better than Charlgra is that you could stack 5 shards on one minion each turn rather than have them spread out across your board. This nerf theoretically will lower the number of shards gained by buying and selling the maximum amount of minions each turn.
I experienced the Archdruid Naralex bug earlier today when a mage got a copy of mine from Mirror Entity. Pleasant surprise! I still lost though. Unpleasant surprise!
I have no problems with the ban currently, but I would like it much more if they changed how paying health for cards and immunity works together instead of completely changing the card when it rotates in 2 years.
I'm mostly fine with the Stealer of Souls ban. I only play Wild and Duels, and taken by itself, I really don't mind a new card being banned in Wild. It's just like it was never added.
The problem I have is that the mini-set was announced just days before it was released, and it takes something like 4 weeks of completing 13,000 xp of quests per week to earn 2000 gold, so I am still trying to save up enough gold to buy the mini-set. As a result, I'm not going to be able to play with this card in Wild before it is banned, which is a bit of a bummer. I would still be totally ok with it if not for the fact that there is an achievement based on it! As soon as I saw the announcement of this ban last week, I gave up on the idea of being able to get the achievement in the intended way in Wild, so I put together a deck based on getting the achievement with Cho'gall instead, only to find that casting a warlock spell after playing Cho'gall doesn't give credit toward the achievement like you would expect! Incidentally, it also doesn't ramp up Lesser Amethyst Spellstone like you would expect.
Oh well. I'll just have to see about putting Stealer in a Duels deck, I guess. I'm not interested enough in the achievement to play Standard just so that I can get it.
Technically speaking they announced the mini-set in february as part of the roadmap, or even earlier as part of the Darkmoon faire expansion where they said that every future expansion will get a mini-set. That's like saying that you only have 1 month to save gold for the next (normal) expansion, because they don't release the trailer sooner.
To be fair - the mini-set was announced in February, not "just days before it was released," so folks have had four months to save their gold.
You can just craft it now if you dont have it, since you'll get a refund when the patch goes live tomorrow.
Of course, that's just one day. But that's still doable, assuming you hustle for it.