MArcomage

The problem is isn't the discard, but the fact that it's not strong enough for a rare beast.

perhaps just replace enemy's hand with non-Frenzy Beast cards? come on, if u r gonna make it give the enemy common beasts, then the enemy is virtually srewed. You replace all possible defensive cards in his hand, you will deal him 160 damage the next round (and will keep damaging him) and all this for just 20 gems and 30 recruits (taking in mind that you need to play this twice). You need to give the opponent at least a chance of counteracting you, or else just increase the cost or reduce its strength (always having in mind that the effect will be to replace enemy's hand with common Beasts). Otherwise just leave it as it is. My oppinion is, if you feel it's wrong to give the enemy multiple Frenzies, then do not allow the card to do so, simple as that.

... replacing Durable with Frenzy. So you're just replacing their hand.

I actually like the idea about replacing enemy hand with non-Frenzy Beasts. Wolf Raiders and Wolf Mistress in enemy hand - and you are in the world of yeah.

If you're going to buff it, I think the non-frenzy idea is overly specific. It's based on the reasoning "I don't want to give my opponent cards that are too good, and uncommon beast frenzies - specifically wold raiders- happen to be really good, so let's say no frenzies". What happens after a few new packs of cards and balance changes, when, say, Griffin becomes a powerhouse? Do we change it to non-frenzy non-alliance Beast cards?

I'm not convinced that it needs much of a buff, but if we are going to buff it I'd prefer to just decrease the cost or increase the attack coefficient. The fact that using its first mode puts you in a position of vulnerability (if you don't have a good wall) is part of what makes this card interesting and unique.

I thought about it. Now I think that if Beastmaster's cost will be decreased it will not solve his problems. The main goal of Beast decks is to force your opponent to defend. If you play Beastmaster you force your opponent to play aggressive instead of defend. Well, if you played Cockatrice before Beastmaster you are in VERY good position but... how many times it happens?
Beastmaster is all-or-nothing card, yes. It was risky even when there was no Wolf Mistress (Wolf Raiders, Keeper of Souls, Griffin/Elefant...), but now it's too dangerous.
By the way, Alliance can't achieve damage/cost ratio 3 or more when Beast/Frenzy doing it easily.

dindon wrote:
What happens after a few new packs of cards and balance changes, when, say, Griffin becomes a powerhouse? Do we change it to non-frenzy non-alliance Beast cards?

Then we rebalance as necessary. Given the current changes, I feel that Beastmaster is a pitiful rare. My suggestion, I believe, addresses its primary weakness: giving your opponent a killer hand. What other rare does that? Especially one that costs more than nothing?

My point is that you're fixing the wrong problem. If uncommon beast frenzies are significantly more powerful than other uncommon beasts, then that's a balance problem which should be fixed in its own right, not something that should be worked around in a circuitous way.

I think it should stay as it is.
do you remember when volcano was buffed? nature decks became overpowered and so nature keyword was badly nerfed.
a bad rare best is needed to balance beast decks (and beast farm)

dindon wrote:
If uncommon beast frenzies are significantly more powerful than other uncommon beasts, then that's a balance problem which should be fixed in its own right, not something that should be worked around in a circuitous way.

Frenzies is what makes Beast decks playable since the Overpower ner and wall/tower raise. They aren't the problem, the poor performance of a rare is. I believe my suggestions would fix the problem. Alternatively, I suggest giving Beastmaster the Frenzy keyword to at least make him worthwhile to hold in your hand.

Fithz wrote:
I think it should stay as it is.
do you remember when volcano was buffed? nature decks became overpowered and so nature keyword was badly nerfed.
a bad rare best is needed to balance beast decks (and beast farm)

Do you mean Earthquake? Also, why not change it, see how bad/good it goes, then switch back if necessary?

jbryant3 wrote:
Also, why not change it, see how bad/good it goes, then switch back if necessary?

This kind of thinking is actually rather ruinous in the world of business. Changing something and then changing it back again will almost always result in more unhappy clients than leaving it alone in the first place.

Not that we shouldn't try to balance cards that need it, but ignoring well-reasoned counterpoint to istead try out ideas haphazardly is far from the best way of going about things.

On a semi-related note, remember when this card almost always gave the opponent a Banish? Now THAT was broken.

Because I don't believe it will be imbalanced.

You've made that clear, but you have some convincing to do first. "Let's just try it out" is a little drastic at this point.

Problems with this card:
1. Unlike all other rares, it has a high chance of giving the opponent a very strong hand (due to Frenzies).
2. It's expensive for Beast decks, which are typically strapped for resources.
3. The other Beast rares (can) do more damage for less.

Solutions:
1.a. Rework the card (see prior post)
1.b. Modify what opponent gets to either common beasts or non-Frenzy non-rare Beasts

2.a. Rework the card (see prior post)
2.b. Reduce the cost
2.c. Give it the Frenzy keyword

3.a. Increase the damage coefficient

jbryant3 wrote:
Problems with this card:
1. Unlike all other rares, it has a high chance of giving the opponent a very strong hand (due to Frenzies).

What about Danai Present? You can give your opponent Revolt or Call of the Wilds, as well as extra stock to use them effectively.

jbryant3 wrote:
2. It's expensive for Beast decks, which are typically strapped for resources.

It costs half as much as Chimera though.

jbryant3 wrote:
3. The other Beast rares (can) do more damage for less.

We can compare to Chimera again. Chimera does between 40 and 90 damage, depending.

Playing Beastmaster twice (mode 1, then mode 2), gives betweeen 40 and 90 damage (:o! Exactly the same!). I'm not going to hammer on the probability of each card doing X damage in that range. I'll just point out that you can keep playing Beastmaster after the second go, and continue to do good damage (provided your opponent doesn't quickly draw Auxilia or the like), whereas Chimera is a one-time thing.

You may say "A-ha, but playing mode 1 may give your opponent good cards, making it worse than Chimera". However, it works both ways. If your opponent is about to get a Tower victory with Pyramids, you can play Beastmaster and deny them. Beastmaster gives you control, and a durable card with the power to completely muk up the opponent's whole hand is really powerful, especially in long mode where the damage of a Wolf Raiders or Giant Spider is less important.

Danai present is a very good card because it's free.

Chimera is good even if not played because it has Frenzy. Plus it's a one-turn card. Which is a good thing?

jbryant3 wrote:
Danai present is a very good card because it's free.

Chimera is good even if not played because it has Frenzy. Plus it's a one-turn card. Which is a good thing?

Not if you have resources to burn, as is often the case in long mode.

That new Shadow wolf made Beastmaster even worse than before because you can easily discard Beastmaster with Shadow wolf. And as long as Shadow wolf doesn't discard summoners, Beastmaster stays its main target in Beast decks.

Yes, I still think that Beastmaster needs a change. Frenzied War elephant incoming, and Beastmaster's mode 1 will become VERY risky once again. There is more than enough cards which can punish you for Beastmaster in mode 1: Keeper of souls with N=16-18, Wolf raiders which are still very good, Wolf mistress - Frenzy summoner - et cetera.
I finally realized what does this card truly need - some recruits- to opponent when played in mode 1. -10, for example. In that case opponent will be able to capitalize 45+ recruits, but 20-40 wouldn't be a serious threat. And one more thing - now Beasts have some great recruits+ cards like Fire fox, so those -10 recruits could be restored.