Commander Ledros ought to round down

  • Nohgolgh's Avatar 10 1 Posts Joined 02/15/2020
    Posted 6 days, 12 hours ago
    Quote From Bystekhilcar
    Quote From franky
    -snip-

    Indeed, but that would have to be 2 turns later, where I would be dead already. And that would be 2 more cards to draw, where he could draw Decimate and Blade's Edge and in that case he didn't even need to attack or a board at all.

    That's why I gave a practical example, and not an assuming one. Because when we enter the realm of assumptions, everything is possible ;)

    When it comes to analysis, 'practical examples' are better known as 'anecdotal evidence' and are generally worthless. Anyone can come up with a scenario in which a card is gamewinning.

    Moving on.

     

    Quote From FortyDust

     

    • Roughly the same stats as other 8-drops
    • Immediately deals direct damage to enemy nexus (up to 10 damage!)
    • Returns to hand and can be resummoned for infinite value, infinite direct damage (expensive, but infinite nonetheless)
    • Fearsome, so impossible to chump block
    • Very few ways in the entire game to keep him from coming back

     

     

    Alternative view:

    - There are barely any 8-drops in the game, so stat-comparison doesn't really have much of a sample size. Small enough, in fact, that it's not unreasonable to ask 'okay, well, are the other 8-drops too weak rather than this one too strong?'. I would however note that he shares a mana slot with Ren Shadowblade, who literally sits on board saying 'your opponent now cannot develop a board, ever, until I'm removed'. 

    - Direct damage which is scaled to be incredibly inefficient as a finisher and strong if levelling a playing field; being burn in and of itself doesn't indicate an abundance of power.

    - Historically, people tend to overvalue 'infinite' effects from my experience. Saw it a lot in HS - people tend to ignore the actual value of the card in favour of what can happen in incredibly obscure circumstances. While still relevant for balance purposes (of course), you're not going to see the card bounced more than a couple of times in the vast majority of games.

    - Fearsome - sure. On the other hand, you're running at least 8 mana at this point - you can afford to block with something other than chumps. However, further point on this below.

     

    Having thought further on the Fearsome point - generally speaking I don't value Fearsome all that highly, particularly on expensive cards (if you're getting that late into the game and still relying on chumps, you're having issues, is my usual feeling). However in this case, Fearsome has the secondary issue which I don't see anyone raising - top-heavy stats plus Fearsome plus bounce effect is a Catch-22 situation because you're forced into blocking with higher attack followers, which in turn makes the follower more likely to bounce.

    Having considered that point now, I do agree that the Fearsome keyword is kind of problematic. Though I stand by my disagreement on the burn rounding up/down, because again, if you're losing to this card purely from the burn alone, you were probably dead anyway.

    You usually draw one card per turn, so your hand becomes empty pretty fast. So if you trade the board, the return value of Ledros is immense, because now you have 2 cards next turn to play from hand while your opponent has only 1. Also if you draw a spell, you can spend 2-5 mana instead of 2, depending on your extra mana. If on the other hand the enemy draws a spell, Ledros presents a vicious threat to his life. Most cards that would draw you extra stuff, are not suited to do anything against Ledros, because you have to pay highly for extra draws (shadow assasin and avarosan sentry cannot even block ledros) and the best drawing card is glimpse beyond, which is mostly run by aggro decks.

    Next is Ledros rewards aggro decks for the enemy to have the right answers. Let us assume, the control player did really well and protected all 20 of his lifepoints. The reward for this is, that an 8 drop can instantly remove 10 of the well-protected life points and in case the mobilization mark is on the side of the ledros player, attack for potential 8 other hit points. The enemy cannot block it with weak creatures so he has to sacrifice a bigger creature or use a spell. Iconically, that is the point, that you pointed out the most, but in my oppinion is the least problematic. A control player should not have that many creatures of small size or if he has, they should be impactful in some way (otherwise we would not talk about control). Even more ironic is, that that is the good case. If the contol player manages to only protect 15 or only 5 life points and a stabilizing board, then Ledros proves as even more dangerous. The only situation Ledros seems pretty useless is against a sucessful aggro. He may be strong but he cannot block all attackers. Other than that, you have to run a cleanse (very situational card) or some freeze- she who wanders combo (13 Mana).

    Ledros Statline is 2 higher in both attack and defense in comparison to Ren Shadowblade and one mayor difference is, that Ledros is an immediate threat, while Ren Shadowblade only has future effects. An 8/6 with an effect to set your Hp to 10 (maximum) is immediate lethal threat. Especially in the Later game where you have some removal, which would completly counter Ren, but not Ledros. Also Ren Shadowblade gets pretty much destroyed by cards that profit from the death of your own stuff (like...again... Rhasa). Also if you and your enemy already have 2-3 cards on the field Ren loses value, because the units on the board are not affected at all. With Ledros I am glad to attack/trade every turn I can, while Ren is card that needs to be protected to be useful. Ren is a card of the type " If you win, win more". Ledros is a gamechanger. That is why Ledros is run in every shadowisland deck (which to my experience is the most used faction) and Ren is as often seen as a unicorn (although Ionia is popular faction as well).

    Ledros is one of the reasons that there are no really good contol decks out. It is simply more rewarding to play aggro spiderlings, outdraw your enemy with glimpse beyond and in case of Lategame have Ledros as standalone to deal with the rest of the enemy life.

    I would have much less problems with Ledros if he was a card, that would only be good in control decks, which are the only decks that should have a card of his effect in deck. Ledors should reward a control player for surviving and not give aggro/midrange another tool to finish the game.

    There are not many cards that have this much unconditional power in the game at all and especially not at this time. The best comparision in my oppinion is Anivia. Anivia is a 7 drop with 2/4 and the relatively unconditional effect to deal 1 damage to every enemy when attacking. Anivia can level up upon becoming awakened, becoming a 3/5 with 2 damge to everything every attack. Also when Anivia dies she becomes an egg 0/2 and at the start of every turn if awakened, she turns back into the 3/5. So Anivia is easier to remove than Ledros and has a much weaker statline. If you play her before turn 10, you risk to lose her for nothing. And she rewards you with power after turn 10 especially power to deal with the aggro and midrange board.

    So in comparison, Anivia needs 2 turns longer to be useful, has much less of an immidiate threat (although in the long run she can take over your board consistantly), can be contested easier than ledros. since her effect requires her to attack, you can kill her once by blocking and then with a spell, which is not card efficient but adequate for a lategame card, which is a brick for 9 consecutive turns. For her strong effect she hs to pay with a waek statline.

    1
  • meisterz39's Avatar Anduin 275 249 Posts Joined 06/03/2019
    Posted 6 days, 11 hours ago
    Quote From Bystekhilcar
    I don't think I'd agree with lowering his attack value because making him kinda garbage on the board leaves him with all his cost going to pay for the effect. Having him be top heavy but blockable by trash makes him more interesting by design - the opponent needs to make tough decisions as to how to block him.

    Removing Fearsome doesn't make blocking interesting, it makes it obvious. If Ledros didn't have Fearsome, you'd always chump block him to ensure he takes very little damage over time. This would be the best play every time to delay the inevitable bounce back to your opponent's hand.

     

     

     

    0
  • Bystekhilcar's Avatar Content Squad 225 275 Posts Joined 09/02/2019
    Posted 4 days, 12 hours ago
    Quote From Nohgolgh
    -snip- lots of stuff -snip-

    All of which is an analysis of the card itself - the OP was on rounding on the burn effect. Throughout the entire thread I've not been saying that the card is bad - what I have been saying is that of all the things on the card to complain about, burn rounding is the very bottom of the list. It's not touched on at all in your post, either, so I assume you're in agreement with me and just vociferously disagreeing with points I haven't made :P

    Quote From meisterz39
    Removing Fearsome doesn't make blocking interesting, it makes it obvious. If Ledros didn't have Fearsome, you'd always chump block him to ensure he takes very little damage over time. This would be the best play every time to delay the inevitable bounce back to your opponent's hand.

    On a surface-level analysis, sure. The inverse (as is currently on live) is that you're shoved into an automatic lose-lose situation in which you either take eight to the dome or bounce him back in two turns max while losing a chunk of your board. It's hard to make something an interesting decision when either result is atrocious for you.

    By contrast, removing restrictions opens up decision-making options. Entirely anecdotal example - I had a game last night in which I purposefully blocked a Ledros with a 6/5 spider rather than a 4/1spiderling, killing it intentionally. My reasoning was that my opponent had burned all mana for the turn and didn't have lethal, so I had the opportunity for counter-lethal if I could bait the Ledros play. Following round, he did indeed drop the Ledros - giving me 100% security that he couldn't then stop my play for lethal which would otherwise have been risky and depended on him not having counter-buffs.

    Obviously, as I say, anecdotal (and something I was able to do with Ledros having Fearsome already, obviously). Point is, though, opening more options makes for a more involved decision.

    I see you when you're sleeping; I'm gone before you wake

    I'm not as good as turn 4 Barnes; But I'm at least a Twilight Drake

    0
  • BlueSpark's Avatar 95 91 Posts Joined 01/27/2020
    Posted 4 days, 12 hours ago

    Bystekhilcar has a point in that we're kind of moving away from the original intention of the thread. However, I think examining the card as a whole has merit.

    I really like a suggestion that I've read in a different thread (the patch predictions, I believe): Make Ledros bounce to the top of its owner's deck instead of their hand. Boom, suddenly the immense card advantage Ledros generates is gone. If your opponent keeps playing him turn after turn, they at least won't accumulate additional cards. He might still be a bit too strong and need some tweaking from there, but I think it'd be a great start to balancing Ledros while preserving his identity.

    0
  • meisterz39's Avatar Anduin 275 249 Posts Joined 06/03/2019
    Posted 4 days, 11 hours ago
    Quote From Bystekhilcar
    Quote From meisterz39
    Removing Fearsome doesn't make blocking interesting, it makes it obvious. If Ledros didn't have Fearsome, you'd always chump block him to ensure he takes very little damage over time. This would be the best play every time to delay the inevitable bounce back to your opponent's hand.

    On a surface-level analysis, sure. The inverse (as is currently on live) is that you're shoved into an automatic lose-lose situation in which you either take eight to the dome or bounce him back in two turns max while losing a chunk of your board. It's hard to make something an interesting decision when either result is atrocious for you.

    By contrast, removing restrictions opens up decision-making options. Entirely anecdotal example - I had a game last night in which I purposefully blocked a Ledros with a 6/5 spider rather than a 4/1spiderling, killing it intentionally. My reasoning was that my opponent had burned all mana for the turn and didn't have lethal, so I had the opportunity for counter-lethal if I could bait the Ledros play. Following round, he did indeed drop the Ledros - giving me 100% security that he couldn't then stop my play for lethal which would otherwise have been risky and depended on him not having counter-buffs.

    Obviously, as I say, anecdotal (and something I was able to do with Ledros having Fearsome already, obviously). Point is, though, opening more options makes for a more involved decision.

    There's a real irony in dropping an anecdote shortly after saying "When it comes to analysis, 'practical examples' are better known as 'anecdotal evidence' and are generally worthless." It's quite possible that your opponent played Ledros specifically because he or she had no counter-buffs, so Ledros was the only play left, and that your anecdote could just as easily have played out in your favor with a chump block instead. There's no way to know.

    To be clear on this, I'm not against removing Fearsome - in fact, I think it's a good idea - but the idea that it will make blocking "more interesting" seems ridiculous. Giving your opponent more burn tools/card advantage in almost universally bad in card games. The trade you described in your anecdote only works when that burn can't kill you, or when you can attack back for lethal before your opponent does anything, so if anything it's the exception rather than the rule.

    Perhaps removing the Fearsome tag is enough to rebalance Ledros' impact on the metagame, but the infinite burn is part of an overall massively OP package that suppresses even the strongest control strategies.

    0
  • Bystekhilcar's Avatar Content Squad 225 275 Posts Joined 09/02/2019
    Posted 4 days, 9 hours ago
    Quote From BlueSpark

    d in a different thread (the patch predictions, I believe): Make Ledros bounce to the top of its owner's deck instead of their hand. Boom, suddenly the immense card advantage Ledros generates is gone. If your opponent keeps playing him turn after turn, they at least won't accumulate additional cards. He might still be a bit too strong and need some tweaking from there, but I think it'd be a great start to balancing Ledros while preserving his identity.

    As in the other thread, I would agree with this change. It's less about card advantage, in my view, and more about having a significant trade-off to playing him - by doing so you're essentially locking yourself into a single strategy (particularly if your hand is otherwise empty). You're all-in, and your opponent can then formulate a strategy to counter what you're doing, in which case you lose. If they can't, you win. In that case, he would be no different to other game-ending cards.

    Quote From meisterz39
    There's a real irony in dropping an anecdote shortly after saying "When it comes to analysis, 'practical examples' are better known as 'anecdotal evidence' and are generally worthless."

    There isn't at all, assuming you're reading analytically rather than just looking to snipe. I stated clearly that it was an anecdotal example. The difference between this and the earlier instance is that the earlier post gave no real argument or context - just gave an anecdote and said 'this is why it needs to change'. That's attempting to use an anecdote as evidence, which is worthless.

    My use-case was purely as an example to better explain what I was saying. It wasn't intended to be supporting evidence - which is why I called out the anecdote myself, twice - it was purely to make it clear what point I was trying to make. By calling it out I was attempting to make it clear that I wasn't trying to hang any point on it, but apparently that was unsuccessful.

    Incidentally, the anecdote itself was raised purely in the context of the Fearsome tag and whether removing it makes trades more or less interesting. It wasn't connected to the rest of the card, and wasn't used to make any point in relation to the burn effect or similar. Again, thought that was obvious from the discussion.

    I see you when you're sleeping; I'm gone before you wake

    I'm not as good as turn 4 Barnes; But I'm at least a Twilight Drake

    1
  • FortyDust's Avatar 160 210 Posts Joined 05/29/2019
    Posted 4 days, 7 hours ago

    It recently occurred to me that Ledros is stronger than a lot of Champions, so why not make him a Champion, subject to Champion deckbuilding restrictions?

    They could significantly water him down in the pre-leveled version and give him a fairly difficult "quest."

    For example:

    8 mana  6/4 Fearsome, Play: Cut the enemy Nexus Health in half. Level Up: I've killed 3 units.

    Leveled up: +1/+1, loses Play effect, Last Breath: Return me to hand.

    This would still make a good Champion, but it's not great for aggro decks, and it's just a lot more fair to play against generally. Most important is that you do not get to keep damaging the Nexus when he starts bouncing. There is some incentive to run multiple copies because he probably doesn't survive to level up on the first try. (But note that he does not have to survive as he kills the units to increment his counter.)

    0
  • Actin's Avatar 50 13 Posts Joined 02/15/2020
    Posted 4 days, 6 hours ago

    Just make him into Exodia and have him require 10 regular mana and 3 spell mana and have him take the enemy nexus to 1 HP

    -2
  • meisterz39's Avatar Anduin 275 249 Posts Joined 06/03/2019
    Posted 4 days, 5 hours ago

    Quote From Bystekhilcar

    There isn't at all, assuming you're reading analytically rather than just looking to snipe. I stated clearly that it was an anecdotal example. The difference between this and the earlier instance is that the earlier post gave no real argument or context - just gave an anecdote and said 'this is why it needs to change'. That's attempting to use an anecdote as evidence, which is worthless.

    My use-case was purely as an example to better explain what I was saying. It wasn't intended to be supporting evidence - which is why I called out the anecdote myself, twice - it was purely to make it clear what point I was trying to make. By calling it out I was attempting to make it clear that I wasn't trying to hang any point on it, but apparently that was unsuccessful.

    Incidentally, the anecdote itself was raised purely in the context of the Fearsome tag and whether removing it makes trades more or less interesting. It wasn't connected to the rest of the card, and wasn't used to make any point in relation to the burn effect or similar. Again, thought that was obvious from the discussion.

    I'm not looking to snipe - I just think you're treating your own arguments with a double-standard. I think franky's goal with an anecdote was to demonstrate how significant Ledros' burn damage can be - it, combined with Fearsome, literally flipped a game from a loss to a win by dealing 16 damage in a single turn despite being way behind on the board. You don't have to agree with the argument that the burn damage is the biggest problem with the card, but your anecdote is not somehow unique or better than franky's simply because you like your point of view better.

    Your argument around blocking basically says that giving your opponent card advantage and extra burn tools doesn't matter if you're ahead enough on board and can get lethal before your opponent can react/burn you out. This is certainly true, and is the basic thesis for why aggro decks work. But this case requires board-centric play (which clearly doesn't always win you the game, as per franky's example), and it certainly doesn't address the way that the direct damage can be a death knell for anyone trying to play a slower, more controlling strategy that might otherwise beat the common Aggro + Ledros decks in the metagame but for his inevitable burn damage (which was the my complaint with the card to begin with).

    Again, I'm willing to believe that removing the Fearsome tag could shift the metagame such that his inevitable long-game lethal will be made less oppressive by simply seeing less of him on the ladder, but his burn is non-trivial and suppressing in his current state.

    0
  • DoubleSummon's Avatar E.V.I.L. Dragon 515 892 Posts Joined 03/25/2019
    Posted 2 days, 8 hours ago

     

    Nerfed btw

    0
  • FortyDust's Avatar 160 210 Posts Joined 05/29/2019
    Posted 2 days, 5 hours ago

    All I know is, people still surrender as soon as I play him.

    Also, if you can make it to turn 8 as SI, you can make it to turn 9. The nerf was not a nerf, but +1 power is a real boost.

    He's still the worst-designed card in the game -- possibly even more oppressive now than he was before.

    1
  • YourPrivateNightmare's Avatar Swamp 665 1102 Posts Joined 03/25/2019
    Posted 2 days, 2 hours ago
    Quote From DoubleSummon

     

    Nerfed btw

    alright, how do you have three Ledros on board and your opponent's Nexus is still at full...with no cards?

    I tried having fun once.

    It was awful.

    0
  • greenhatjynx78's Avatar 75 39 Posts Joined 01/26/2020
    Posted 2 days, 2 hours ago

    he denyed it 3 times :]

    0
  • OldManSanns's Avatar Explorer of Dragons 285 213 Posts Joined 08/05/2019
    Posted 2 days, 2 hours ago
    Quote From FortyDust

    It recently occurred to me that Ledros is stronger than a lot of Champions, so why not make him a Champion, subject to Champion deckbuilding restrictions?

    They could significantly water him down in the pre-leveled version and give him a fairly difficult "quest."

    For example:

    8 mana  6/4 Fearsome, Play: Cut the enemy Nexus Health in half. Level Up: I've killed 3 units.

    Leveled up: +1/+1, loses Play effect, Last Breath: Return me to hand.

    This would still make a good Champion, but it's not great for aggro decks, and it's just a lot more fair to play against generally. Most important is that you do not get to keep damaging the Nexus when he starts bouncing. There is some incentive to run multiple copies because he probably doesn't survive to level up on the first try. (But note that he does not have to survive as he kills the units to increment his counter.)

    I actually really like that concept, except I would tweak it a little bit.  Specifically:

    L1: 8 mana 8/6 with Fearsome, no "played" effect.  If this unit would die, level up and return to hand instead.

    L2: 8 mana 9/6 with Fearsome, Play: cut nexus in half, Last Whisper: return to hand

    That way, he plays a bit like a cross between Tryndamere and Katarina.

    0
  • FortyDust's Avatar 160 210 Posts Joined 05/29/2019
    Posted 2 days, 2 hours ago

    Interesting, but I was intentionally trying to do away with the situation where he eats all of your big units while simultaneously whittling down your Nexus every time he's replayed. One or the other is more than enough inevitability, in my opinion.

    0
  • DoubleSummon's Avatar E.V.I.L. Dragon 515 892 Posts Joined 03/25/2019
    Posted 2 days, 1 hour ago
    Quote From YourPrivateNightmare
    Quote From DoubleSummon

     

    Nerfed btw

    alright, how do you have three Ledros on board and your opponent's Nexus is still at full...with no cards?

    He had a 16/16 life steal tough follower for 5 turns it was a very long game. 

    I had one ledros in the game but I casted harrowing which didn't get denied and got 2 copies of ledros, then I grinded him with ledroses.

    Last boss in expedition btw. 

    0
  • Leave a Comment

    You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign in here.