Zadina

Ben Brode on the Fiery War Axe Nerf

Sign in to follow this  

34 posts in this topic

e51jlit.jpg

Members of the community were upset at how the Fiery War Axe nerf was phrased and explained in the official blog post. Ben Brode wanted to clarify that "they don't think players are stupid" and tried to justify why a 2-mana 2/2 Fiery War Axe isn't a good change.

After the announcement of the upcoming balance changes, the community has been vividly discussing about them. Ben Brode already gave some explanations on Reddit this week and earlier today he returned to provide some answers on the hot topic of the Fiery War Axe nerf.

People felt their intelligence was insulted from the phrasing of the developers' notes on the Fiery War Axe change. The phrase that seems to have caused the outrage is the following:

Blizzard LogoBlizzard Entertainment

The other option we considered for Fiery War Axe was to lower its attack to 2, but that change didn’t feel intuitive enough. Generally, changing the mana cost of a card is less disruptive, because you can always see the mana cost of cards in your hand. (source)

Ben Brode gave a comment to VentureBeat clarifying that all of the affected cards were nerfed for power level reasons. The team doesn't think Hearthstone players are stupid; in fact, they are perfectly capable of memorising the entire set of cards. A change to mana cost is less disruptive simply because of the fact that it's not castable or highlighted green anymore. Here is his full statement:

Blizzard LogoBen Brode

+ Show

I always love to read discussion about Hearthstone, and there’s been a lot of healthy back and forth about the pros and cons of this particular change and the timing of it.
 
However, some of what I read in the community response seems to be a core misunderstanding that we are nerfing cards because we think players are confused by them (and therefore we think players are stupid). I want to be super-clear — these cards are being nerfed for power level reasons, or because we are curating the set of evergreen cards to help Standard feel fresh and more fun with our yearly standard rotation. The language about certain changes being more disruptive than others was related to why we decided to make one change over another, once we’d already decided to make a change.

We absolutely don’t think players are stupid.

I, like a lot of players, have memorized every Hearthstone card. If I show you a picture of Arcanite Reaper, I bet you don’t have to read the card to know that it’s a 5/2 weapon. Art becomes a shortcut to game mechanics.  When we change the underlying game mechanics without changing the art, players who don’t read their cards every time they play a game won’t notice that one of the words on the cards has changed.

I want to make this clear — we don’t think players are too stupid to read their cards. We think players have the capacity to memorize thousands of cards’ text and recognize them by art alone. Nobody double-checks Arcanite Reaper to make sure it’s still a 5/2 weapon each time they cast it. That’s nuts. That’s why it’s less disruptive to change mana cost than Attack, Health, or card text. The card is literally not castable or highlighted green any more, and that makes it obvious that a change has been made to players who have every card memorized.

The discussion continued onto Reddit, where the Game Director repeated more or less the same arguments. A mana cost nerf to a card is just easier, simpler and less disruptive. Even if you have memorised the previous version of the card, the green highlight (or its absence) is the indicating factor of when you can play that card.

Blizzard Logobbrode

I think he's effectively saying "all other things equal, it's preferential to change mana costs rather than anything else". If there are two changes proposed to a card that have near-identical consequences on gameplay, change the mana cost.

That is the case. Sometimes we don't have choices that are very equal, but if you have a couple options that would all be reasonable changes, we tend to prefer to change the mana cost, for players that have memorized the card already. (Source)

 


 

I'm going to be pulling my hair out when I (having memorized all of the cards) try to play my 2 mana 3/2 Fiery War Axe on turn 2. Certainly my 2 mana 3/2 Fiery War Axe will be playable on turn 2 after the next patch, that's how the card is. If they change anything about it, how will I know? I will only ever remember a 2 mana 3/2 Fiery War Axe when I look at the art.

The green highlight makes this less of an issue.

Keep in mind, this is just a minor upside when comparing two potential changes to Fiery War Axe. (Source)

Someone mentioned the Warsong Commander card text change/nerf as an example of inconsistency from Blizzard. Ben admitted that the team learns over time and they adapt accordingly.

Blizzard Logobbrode

Why was Warsong Commander's nerf defended by saying her mana cost was intimately tied to the 'soul of the card'? Blizzard; consistently inconsistent.

Or we learn over time. Is it better to be consistent if you're wrong? (Source)

This led to the topic of whether cards (and card changes) should be intuitive or not and how useful is for a player to learn from his or her mistakes. Blizzard wants to keep things intuitive, but their main concern is balance and they will make unintuitive changes if they have to.

Blizzard Logobbrode

I don't mind if players make mistakes and learn from them.

Making things intuitive is part of good design, though. We could make things very unintuitive so that every thing you do fails on it's first try - there's actual games built around that, but it's generally better to make things intuitive when possible. The game is fun when you're learning about the strategy options and learning from them, not necessarily being surprised by things working differently than you previously memorized. (Source)

 


 

[...]even though I think it's nice if things are intuitive when we change a card, the major concern is ongoing balance. We obviously have made unintuitive changes to cards and will continue to do so if it's the right change for the game. The 'intuitve' remark was a minor point when deciding between a couple reasonable options, not the reason for the change. I posted a bit more about it here. (Source)

Lastly, as to why the team didn't choose to change the weapon to a 2-mana 2/2, they thought that this kind of nerf would have the same impact as the increased mana cost. Therefore - going back to Ben's previous statements on keeping things intuitive - the mana cost change was preferred. The aim was to reduce the power level of the card without making a complicated change, even if a lot of people found the change unimaginative. Ben thinks the card wasn't killed completely since 3-mana 3/2 weapons have been seeing play.

Blizzard Logobbrode

If we thought 2/2 weapon was a better change we would have done it. We thought (3) 3/2 and (2) 2/2 were about the same at reaching our goal of nerfing the weapon, and in that world, it's slightly better to not annoy players who memorized the card. (Source)

 


 

That message [the one showing card changes at the start screen] goes away after one patch, but also, sometimes players don't play the cards after we nerf them. They never get a chance to re-memorize something that became automatic from them after hundreds or thousands of times seeing the art and automatically knowing the functionality. I personally got Arcane Golem in a Tavern Brawl and just played the card and tried to attack with it right away. I hadn't played the card in a year, since we nerfed it. I hadn't even thought about the card anymore. Playing the card and attack was muscle-memory to me.

This isn't a phenomenon everyone experiences, but it definitely happens to players who play enough to develop muscle memory.

It also doesn't matter very much either way.

Just going to reiterate - this is still a minor thing. If we felt like (2) 2/2 was going to be more successful at reaching our goals, we would have done it. But in a world where we have several reasonable options, you have to make a decision, and this is a minor point in favor of a change that doesn't mess as much with players who have memorized their cards to that degree.

In some ways, I regret mentioning it the way we did, because it was such a minor decision point when considering those two options. It had nothing to do with why we changed the card in the first place. (Source)

 


 

I don't think everyone believes all of those things, and that was what I was trying to clear up here.

I do think that specific feedback is reasonable. I don't think we completely killed the card, though. People have played (3) 3/2 weapons in decks where the upside goes totally unused, and I suspect that might be true of Fiery War Axe as well.

If you had changed the text on FWA (can only attack minions, for example) and made the card MORE complicated and MORE disruptive, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER.

There is a difference between complexity and strategic depth. Complexity is the homework you must do before you understand something. Depth is fun. Depth is choices and strategy and out-thinking your opponent. You can get more depth by adding complexity, sometimes. But what matters is the ratio of complexity to depth.

It is more important that you keep cards playable than to keep cards simple.

Those are not mutually exclusive, but in this case the goal was to reduce the power level of the card. Too many basic and classic cards are showing up in decks right now to allow Standard to change enough each year. (Source)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of blah blah damn how can someone talk so much and say nothing or just the same again and again ? :D

I still think a good solution would have been to give the Axe a small bonus in return for the increased mana cost like a Battlecry with a small but for warrior useful effect. I have no idea why they did not consider that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the developers stomping a meme that mocks them out of spite is absolutely glorious. More devs need to stomp out the bull like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In arguing that the change was only because Blizz assumes players to be stupid, a remarkable number of players proved themselves to be just so. 

It's a shame that War Axe is the worst of the 3-mana 3/2 weapons, but too many people are being hung up on the mana-cost versus weapon-attack decision, simply because of one sentence that Brode obviously only communicated in an effort to make reasons for the nerf more clear. I'm sure there are a number of other reasons for making War Axe a 3 mana 3/2 instead of a 2 mana 2/2, but the more drama-guzzling among the community (i.e., basically fucking everyone) tend to jump on things and assume the worst. 

Whatever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not assume the worst. I just wished they had a better way to change it (as I said add something for the increased mana cost) ... Yea yea he said they don't want to change the functionality of a card because players get used to the pictures but if he truly believes player will not see the big in-game popup that shows card changes or not being able to notice during a game "oh this card changed" then he thinks the worst of the players (us). What about the players looking at the picture playing an Innervate and then say "oh damn I didn't know it gives only 1 mana". this and murloc warleader have their functionality changed and it seems ok.

I still agree that they had to nerf the Axe, there is no deck without it and it's always (or most of the time) helping the warrior extremely well. But a dull increase in mana, making it worse than similar weapons is just a way to remove another basic card from standard decks and hide it behind a ton of words.

Edited by Caldyrvan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think that "can't attack enemy hero" would have been a better nerf. I'm a wild player, so for me FWA have ceased to exists because there is a warrior weapon better then vanilla (3) 3/2; and I don't like this type of nerf. Warrior is a warrior, should have a cheap weapon, cheaper then similar weapon in other classes.

The only think I hope is that they don't make an epic 2 mana weapon in next set... If they do it in other rarities it would be nice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Synesthesy said:

The only think I hope is that they don't make an epic 2 mana weapon in next set... If they do it in other rarities it would be nice.

 

I am curious if they'll do such a thing.

Remove a standard card and replace it with an expensive one. I wouldn't put it beyond Blizzard to do exactly that (I get a feeling in the last month that Blizzard actually tries to make decks more expensive. That "making it more expensive" is part of the design and the thoughtprocess. Just a feeling, I don't claim it to be true, it is just a little nagging in the back of my head.) But I still don't think they will do that. That would be too much, too greedy.

Time will tell - sooner or later, time will tell. (Quiz: Which game is this quote from?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really get why it'd be so bad for a few players not to notice the change and attack once thinking it's a 3/2 rather than 2/2. It might even not lose them that game, and it'd only be one game because after all, players are not stupid.

I think the 2/2 change would've been better. From a wild perspective, at least then there'd be a reason to play it over Defender. From a pirate warrior perspective, the deck doesn't want another three drop and wants an early weapon so 2/2 for 2 is vastly superior to 3/2 for 3. Not sure which control warrior would prefer, probably meta dependent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The weapon was fine for 4 years. It wasn't OP, just a very good card.

Now, instead of nerfing pirates, they decided to nerf another classic card into the ground.

Has anyone ever used King's Defender? Well, Fiery War Axe is now much worse.

I also find it pretty funny that rogue now has a more versatile 3 mana 3/2 weapon (hero ability + Deadly Poison). On the same note, rogue now also has a more versatile innervate (Counterfeit Coin) since the class, unlike druid, has combo synergy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Has anyone ever used King's Defender? Well, Fiery War Axe is now much worse.

They're not the same because FWA is a basic card.  King's Defender is a non-standard rare.  So, they're available in different realms to different players.  Brode made the point that (cards like) Eaglehorn Bow see play even in decks without Secrets.  So, a vanilla 3/2 weapon for 3 mana is not necessarily useless.

 

Quote

rogue ..., unlike druid, has combo synergy.

Uhm ... Druid has combo synergy, though.  Malygos Druid has been around for a while.

 

Quote

all what I got, it's that we players are stupid

Forgive me but logically you really are stupid if that's all you got from what he said.  He said that he recognized that players can memorize 1189 different cards.  How does that equate to saying that you're stupid?

 

Quote

a good solution would have been to give the Axe a small bonus in return for the increased mana cost like a Battlecry with a small but for warrior useful effect. I have no idea why they did not consider that.

Why they didn't consider something you haven't properly defined?  Sorry, but a "small but for warrior useful effect" isn't something worth considering, because it's not an idea.  It's just asking for magical thinking.  I think they should replace the game with a game that's the same but better because it's got better things in it.  Why don't they consider that?  Why, Ben, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mimech said:

They're not the same because FWA is a basic card.  King's Defender is a non-standard rare.  So, they're available in different realms to different players.  Brode made the point that (cards like) Eaglehorn Bow see play even in decks without Secrets.  So, a vanilla 3/2 weapon for 3 mana is not necessarily useless.

 

Uhm ... Druid has combo synergy, though.  Malygos Druid has been around for a while.

 

Forgive me but logically you really are stupid if that's all you got from what he said.  He said that he recognized that players can memorize 1189 different cards.  How does that equate to saying that you're stupid?

 

Why they didn't consider something you haven't properly defined?  Sorry, but a "small but for warrior useful effect" isn't something worth considering, because it's not an idea.  It's just asking for magical thinking.  I think they should replace the game with a game that's the same but better because it's got better things in it.  Why don't they consider that?  Why, Ben, why?

This entire post is quite a toxic response... Eaglehorn sees play because rushing 6 damage is all you care about in several hunter decks. That doesn't mean it is working as intended just because it gets used without secrets, it also is used in completely different archetypes because it is a different class.

Druid's combo synergy was reliant on creating new mana crystals or reducing cost, something that innervate nerf will impact greatly. It means you can't do this method outside of wild without new cards.

Also, it's not our job to consider the additional power factors, but it is ours as players to evaluate the changes they make, and this change ruins a card. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, mimech said:

Why they didn't consider something you haven't properly defined?  Sorry, but a "small but for warrior useful effect" isn't something worth considering, because it's not an idea.  It's just asking for magical thinking.  I think they should replace the game with a game that's the same but better because it's got better things in it.  Why don't they consider that?  Why, Ben, why?

That's a lot of sarcasm, why?

I don't need to define something properly, I am not a dev and not even someone talking to them. I just wanted to say there are better options (in my opinion). There is no need to kill my brain to come up with an idea blizz will near hear or care about.

Edited by Caldyrvan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mimech said:

They're not the same because FWA is a basic card.  King's Defender is a non-standard rare.  So, they're available in different realms to different players.  Brode made the point that (cards like) Eaglehorn Bow see play even in decks without Secrets.  So, a vanilla 3/2 weapon for 3 mana is not necessarily useless.

Look at the state of hunter in the last few expansions though. Hunter would definitely play better cards, if he had any.

20 minutes ago, mimech said:

Uhm ... Druid has combo synergy, though.  Malygos Druid has been around for a while.

I believe they were referring to the Combo effect, as can be seen on cards like SI:7 Agent or Perdition's Blade.

23 minutes ago, mimech said:

Forgive me but logically you really are stupid if that's all you got from what he said.  He said that he recognized that players can memorize 1189 different cards.  How does that equate to saying that you're stupid?

But at the same time, he is implying that players are too stupid to relearn a single card change.

26 minutes ago, mimech said:

Why they didn't consider something you haven't properly defined?  Sorry, but a "small but for warrior useful effect" isn't something worth considering, because it's not an idea.  It's just asking for magical thinking.  I think they should replace the game with a game that's the same but better because it's got better things in it.  Why don't they consider that?  Why, Ben, why?

I don't see anything wrong with that. Just because they did not provide an example doesn't make it a bad idea by default. No need to be so hostile. What about "Battlecry: Gain 1 Armor." Happy now? 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, positiv2 said:

What about "Battlecry: Gain 1 Armor." Happy now? 

In another post I made exactly this example just with 2 Armor, or deal 1 damage. :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What about "Battlecry: Gain 1 Armor." Happy now? 

Yes - much happier!  I didn't think his idea was bad - because he didn't actually present an idea.  You did: so at least we can discuss it's merits.  I can't discuss the merits of "something better" or "something", because it's meaningless.  I don't consider my pointing out a meaningless suggestion to be hostile.  It's just logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But at the same time, he is implying that players are too stupid to relearn a single card change.

No, he said that re-learning cards is more difficult than noticing a mana change.  He presented the mana change as the lesser of two evils.  That's very different than implying stupidity.

Edited by mimech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mimech said:

No, he said that re-learning cards is more difficult than noticing a mana change.  He presented the mana change as the lesser of two evils.  That's very different than implying stupidity.

He keeps talking about complexity being a bad thing, even though we are talking about Pot-of-Greed level of complexity. Also, just because it is more difficult, it doesn't necessarily mean it's hard. Both relearning the card from the text/stats point of view, and relearning it from curve point of view (curvestone, after all) should be fairly easy for everyone. But hey, if the card is dead, no one has to relearn anything. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, mimech said:

No, he said that re-learning cards is more difficult than noticing a mana change.  He presented the mana change as the lesser of two evils.  That's very different than implying stupidity.

I am sorry, but if the thinks that it is very difficult for me to remember that my weapon has now 2/2 instead of 3/2 then he can't think I am very bright, can he?

And strangly the same line of thought doesn't seem to be true for Murloc Warleader or the nerf on several cards later on. Knife Juggler e.g. has been nerfed from 3/2 to 2/2.

The claim: "That would be too difficult for players" is a complete joke and in fact it is quite insulting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The claim: "That would be too difficult for players" is a complete joke and in fact it is quite insulting.

I searched for the phrase "That would be too difficult for players" on this page and it isn't here.  If you got it from somewhere else, please provide a link.  If it's just your words, then it's only you that's saying it.

Nobody else said it would be "very difficult ... to remember [the] weapon has now 2/2 instead of 3/2".  That was just you again.  The game designer said that given a choice between a mana cost change and a card text change, the mana cost change was easier because it's apparent without doing any reading at all.  That's not the same as saying you can't remember new information.

The same logic wasn't used on Murloc Warleader because they judge each case on its merits, rather than having a one rule fits all situations approach.  

Really, if you'd read what the game designer said, you'd know all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @mimech . It's good to see you again.

It doesn't take someone to have studied language (like I have done, for example) to understand that they could have communicated the change better. I will repeat the quote from their explanation in their official announcement:

Quote

The other option we considered for Fiery War Axe was to lower its attack to 2, but that change didn’t feel intuitive enough. Generally, changing the mana cost of a card is less disruptive, because you can always see the mana cost of cards in your hand.

Now, they aren't saying that they think players are stupid. However, it's preposterous that they have included these two lines as their main reasoning in their official announcement. That's why Ben had to go through all this trouble on Reddit to fix the PR disaster that these phrases caused.

Sure, the community blew these words away out of proportion, but the fact remains that they still chose these slightly unfortunate lines in their official statement. It's like me owning a lingerie store and putting the grandma undergarments in the front row of my shop window.

They could have said numerous things that would have made a better impression. They could have written what Brode said about keeping things simple and intuitive. They could have even said "look, we were bored and couldn't be bothered thinking of something better" and people would have appreciated the honesty. 

The issue in this discussion isn't so much whether the Fiery War Axe makes sense.* It's how Blizzard tried to make sense of it and explain it to the plaeyrs.

PS/Asterisk: I do, however, find Ben Brode's lack of real answer to the Redditor, who challenged him by saying "a more complicated more disruptive change to FWA would have been better", troubling.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small picture: These kinds of changes to classic cards are painful to me.

Big Picture: I suppose there is good and bad from moving away from Classic.

Classic cards provide identity for classes, continuity for players who return after a break.  They should be "safe cards" for a new player to collect (they won't get phased out.. at least that is what we all thought),  but if "too many" classic cards are in the meta, that probably means the new expansion wasn't very exciting or fun.

So the big question I guess is: IDEALLY what percentage of our decks should be classic?

And the follow up questions might be: Where are we right now? And is Bliz going the right direction?

Just "going with my gut" I don't think we need fewer classic cards in play.  And I think Bliz is maybe pushing a bit too hard on the variety thing.  A lack of variety is bad, but variety can only go so far.  Increasing the number of choices you have, and the number of things you might be facing is interesting at first, but at some point you mentally just go "well I can be facing anything, so nothing really matters".   Just because a card is played in every deck for a class, isn't automatically bad either, but that is another (long) topic.

Edited by HugeHoss
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HugeHoss said:

So the big question I guess is: IDEALLY what percentage of our decks should be classic?

Another question with this is, can decks maintain variety and not feel the same with more than a certain percentage of classic cards in them? Does have 40% classics in every deck just make them feel the same?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Damien
      This thread is for comments about our Elemental Mage Guide.
    • By Vlad
      This thread is for comments about our Secret Hunter guide.
    • By Starym
      We have a huge "in the works" update from the Hearthstone dev team, showing off some of the features coming in the next months for the game. From general information like them being pleased about the state of the Standard meta, to potential Wild changes, new Classic cards, an extended "intro" period for new players with 25 additional ranks and extra rewards (that are skippable), plans for improvements to in-game tournaments, a tweaking of the Welcome Bundle and more.
      We're also getting a preview for this year's Hallow's End and an upcoming new Paladin hero!
      September 18 (source)
      Welcome to Hearthstone’s first In the Works update. Here we’re giving you a brief look at what’s coming in the next few months for Hearthstone—game updates and events, esports, and more!
      There’s a lot to talk about, so read on to find out what’s in store.
      Game Updates
       
      The State of the Meta We’ve seen the meta-game start to stabilize in the wake of The Boomsday Project’s release. Decks like Odd Warrior, Odd Paladin, Token Druid, Tempo Mage, Taunt Druid, Zoo Warlock, Quest Rogue, Secret Hunter, Even Paladin, Deathrattle Hunter, and Even Warlock, have all been top performers.
      While those decks stand out from the pack slightly, there are effective decks from every class. Evolve Shaman and Combo Priest have both seen success, for example.
      Overall we’re happy with the excellent diversity of decks we’re seeing at all levels of Ranked Play.
       
      Cards to Watch Giggling Inventor is hugely popular and shows up in a lot of decks. We intended for Giggling Inventor to be powerful because we’ve found that having powerful neutral Taunt minions tends to make games more interesting. We’ve seen that with cards like Sludge Belcher and Tar Creeper in the past. Cards that fulfill this role need to be strong to get that job done, but there’s a line where they might be too good. 
      We aren’t planning any changes to Giggling Inventor for now, but we’re keeping an eye on it in the meantime. We’d like to know what you think.
       
      Wild Balance There’s been an ongoing discussion within the team regarding how Wild should play. Right now, Wild feels somewhat like Standard but with an elevated power level and a vast library of cards. Should Wild live up to its name more, where we allow really crazy and powerful combos to happen, even in the early game? Generally, it’s harder for any one strategy to be dominant in Wild since everything is so powerful and everyone has access to so many tools, but do we want those strategies to exist? We know that there are players who would prefer to have a mode that offers that kind of gameplay.
      There’s also the point to consider that the reason to have multiple modes in Hearthstone is for them to play differently, so there are downsides to trying to put the reins on Wild too much. But we also recognize that there might be decks like Naga Sea Witch that become too prevalent and simply aren’t fun to play against.
      We’d love to hear your opinions about what you want from Wild. What do you think of how it is now, and what’s the role you see for it in the future of Hearthstone?
       
      New Classic Cards If you’ve been playing Hearthstone for a while, then you already know that with each new Hearthstone year, we’ve chosen certain cards to rotate out of the Standard format. Some of those cards have been part of the Classic format, which is usually an evergreen part of the Standard format.
      A few of the cards that left Standard were Class cards, but we want each Class to have a roughly equal number of cards available in the Classic set. To accomplish that, we’re adding four all-new cards to fill the gap.
      Here are the new Class cards being added to the Classic set. You’ll be able to craft them or open them in Classic card packs next month:
       

      When designing these cards we are thinking about new players’ first experiences playing Hearthstone.  They should be relatively straightforward while still creating some exciting moments. They also give players a chance to see and play with cards that they don't own. At the same time it’s important that they aren’t so powerful that they limit future design or cause problems (since they’ll be in Standard for longer than 2 years.)
      Looking forward, we expect more cards to join the Hall of Fame. There are also still some gaps in Classic where neutral Legendary cards joined the Hall of Fame, so we’re considering adding some new cards to the Classic set in the future.
       
      New Player Experience Improvements Even at Rank 25, competition in the Tavern can be fierce, especially if you’ve never played Hearthstone before. We’d like to ease new players into the fray a little more gently, so we’re taking some steps toward improving the new player experience. Here’s what newcomers to the Hearthstone tavern can expect to find:

       
      New players will start at Rank 50. Ranks 50 through 26 will be for new players only, and just like ranks 25 through 20, you can’t lose Stars while ranking up. Once a player achieves Rank 25, they’ll never drop below that rank again. We hope this gives players who are new to Hearthstone a little more time to get used to the Tavern, and we’ll also be giving them a few free gifts along the way to help them get up to speed. If you’re an experienced player making an additional account, there will be an option to skip the New Player Experience (and some loot, so consider carefully!) so you can get back into the competition faster. There are a few more details that we’ll provide in the future, but that’s the gist of it!
       
      In-game Tournaments Update Earlier this year we talked about adding a new feature to Hearthstone that would make it easier to organize tournaments for Fireside Gatherings and private events. The team has been working on this feature for some time, and it was originally slated to arrive this year. Unfortunately, In-game Tournaments are now on hold, so we wanted to take this opportunity to explain why.
      We have a lot of plans to improve many features of Hearthstone, including its social experience, and In-game Tournaments are an important part of that. Tournaments can serve many different audiences, but the implementation we’d arrived at catered to a very specific audience of players. Instead of broadening Hearthstone with an exciting new way to play, it felt “tacked on”, and wasn’t integrating well into the larger Hearthstone experience.
      Ultimately, we were forced to conclude that we needed to think about how and where we want to improve Hearthstone’s overall social experience before we can tackle adding a satisfying and robust implementation of In-game Tournaments that all players can enjoy. As developers, sometimes we have to make the difficult decision to step away from a design that isn’t working. We no longer felt that the end result would deliver on everyone’s expectations or the high standards we have for Hearthstone.
      As a result, while we want to revisit In-Game Tournaments at a later date, the feature is on hold for the foreseeable future.
       
      Fireside Gatherings If you’ve never attended a Fireside Gathering, or organized one of your own, you’re missing one of the most fun ways to enjoy Hearthstone with friends! They’re more fun than ever—including private events in your own home—so drop by the Fireside Gatherings site and check it out.
      Innkeepers are soon going to have even more options to spice up their events. It was already possible to experience Fireside Brawls (Tavern Brawls that can only be experienced at Fireside Gatherings), and now they’ll have a whole menu of Brawls to choose from to offer their attendees. In addition to the rotating monthly Fireside Brawl, Innkeepers will be able to select one additional Fireside Brawl from a curated library of brawls that their patrons will have access to during their Fireside Gathering. 
       
      Esports The 2018 HCT Fall Championship is coming mid-October! Watch it live on stream or live in-person at the Blizzard Arena in Los Angeles.
      It’s going to be a thrilling event to witness, and if you can be there live, it gets even better! You’ll get to meet Hearthstone developers, enjoy pick-up tournaments on-site, snap up cool stuff like Hearthstone and Blizzard Arena merchandise and earn the Thrill of Victory card back just for attending!
      You can get your tickets here. Get them fast before they sell out as seating is limited!
       
      Welcome Bundle’s Roaring Return Okay, it never left, but it IS getting a majestic make-over. It will still offer 10 Classic card packs at a very low price (great time to try to pick up those new Classic Class cards!), but instead of a random Class Legendary card, it will now include one of six Legendary dragons from the Classic set: Alexstrasza, Deathwing, Malygos, Nozdormu, Onyxia, or Ysera!

       
      There’s even better news! What could be better than dragons, you ask? Even if you’ve purchased the Welcome Bundle before, you’ll be able to grab this one too!

       
      Upcoming Game Events
       
      Hallow’s End
      The Headless Horseman returns for another spooktacular Hallow’s End event starting October 17! Just like last year, the Tavern will be decked out in horrific fashion, the dual Class Arena returns, and you’ll face the Headless Horseman in the Tavern Brawl. In the spirit of the season, we’re tossing a few more treats in the bag this year, and we’ll let you know all about them as the Headless Horseman’s return draws nigh.

       
      Hallow’s End also marks the arrival of a friendly new Paladin Hero who will be available for purchase as a part of a special deal!
       


      And that’s what’s In the Works for Hearthstone! Thanks for joining us, and we look forward to hearing what you think, so let us know on social media, or in the comments below.
      New Paladin Hero, new Classic cards, an improved new player experience with more loot and more!
    • By Zadina
      It's all about repeat Tavern Brawls and Unstable Portals, as last week we had the Too Many Portals! brawl and this week we have another brawl utilising the same Mage spell.
      This is the second time we see this Tavern Brawl, as it was originally released two years ago. You pick your class and choose seven cards for your deck. The rest of the deck will be filled with Unstable Portals. The pool of your mulligan will consist of the seven cards that you have picked.
      Traditional Mage cards like Mana Wyrm and Flamewaker can be helpful in this Brawl. Rogue also has the tools to cheat out free spells with Counterfeit Coin and Preparation. Lastly, decks with the Barnes and Y'Shaarj, Rage Unbound combo seem popular this time.
      Next week we will have a new Tavern Brawl, as part of the Days of the Frozen Throne event!