Adjust the meta with buffs, not with nerfs : my humble proposal

Greetings everyone !

I have played faeria a lot in 2017 (went in 3 MC but wasn’t good enough to win T.T) and was out of the game for 5/6 months. I came back and saw that the game did not change that much.
One of my habit is to imagine/create games or think about how I would balance a game.

I played a lot of card games and, sadly, they all choosed to improve the meta with nerfs (many for economic reasons). I’d like to see Faeria taking another direction from them : balance patch nerfs AND buffs. Consider the fact that Faeria devs can’t create new cards as fast as in other games and you would understand why we desperately need to up the old unplayable cards to see new competitive decks be created.

For all this reasons, I decided to post a huge list of propositions. I just want to precise that I’m not a game developper and I only considered the cards on their own instead of considering them in the entire Faeria collection. That’s why you may find my changes insuitable. I’d be happy to discuss about it with everyone :slight_smile:

EDIT (18/03/18) : Green list

EDIT (22/03/18) : Neutral list

EDIT (22/03/18) : Multicolored list

I’ll post a comment on Neutral and Multicolor lists soon (let me take a break ^^).


I like how light and subtles your changes are, but a lot of the them are actually nerfs. Will post a list soon.

  • Vine Wall : an interesting sidegrade, but Green already has Ruunin’s guidance as healing, and you don’t need that much heal in a deck. The extra ramp is good to get your thyrian golem earlier, or as a support for the less popular wisp and oak fathers, and you almost always can play the vine Wall in a way that slow your opponent and forces him to kill it, so I prefer the current version of it (and have used it).
  • Shamanic dance : small buff, I don’t know if it’s needed. It is underplayed because of buffs like Elderwood Embrace gives attack, not because it is underpowered per see. So the card is by design less versatile than others, and I don’t think it’s a problem it’s underplayed. Besides, it sees play in some enchant variations of the top tier BG tosser deck (variations even more popular now that earthcraft has been nerfed, since Gabrian Enchantement cycles)
  • Seedling : The small buff is probably objectively good. Personnaly, I would keep it as is, as I am not a huge fan of super cheap creatures with insane value scaling, I would rather have them weak. I do like seedling tho, but I would rather buff Imperial engineer to indirectly buff seedling instead.
  • Tiki Totem : clearly a nerf. Green taunts are weak compared to green beefy creatures (force, Golem), and Green already have buffs to make their taunt stronger whenever needed. Buffs are much more flexible than your or the current Totem, so I don’t think we would see more totems in play. Besides the current strongest interaction of totem is with haste and pseudo haste creatures, such as deepwood stalker and Frog tosser (and it’s a stronger interaction than your totem would have with taunts).
  • Wisp : your change disregards the thematical idea that wisp are (ever) scaling creatures, and takes away yet an other tool to the tree spam archetype (the first being wall. This archetype is not competitive and thus not much played, but still very funny). Best case scenario, you put a lot of effeort to have a discounted Verduran Force, by a time you could have Golem.
  • Seed Sower : 3 land req is a huge nerf for a ramping card. The stat change and cost reduction is not even meaningful, considering the increaseded requirement (the stats/price is even objectively weaker). I like the change in ability though.
  • Soulbound sagami : from 16 total stats for 7 value (6f and a card) to 14 total stats for 6 value, is a very small buff, and the cost reduction makes it easier to play. But making it 4 health is a huge nerf, especially for soulbound sagami. It means it is weak to the many efficient 4dmg removals, such as frogtosser, firebomb, groundshaker into flame burst, to name just a few. It matters a lot for soulbound sagami because you want to control when it dies. The 4 to 5 health gap is an important one, and at 4 health, your opponent has much more opportunities to clear it when none of your other creatures is on board, denying the value.
  • Colossus : the current iteration rewards ramping up to 10 lands, possibly multicolor ones. By making it 6 lands, you further kill the already burried 8+ lands archetypes, such as 3 wishes. Yes it would make it seen as a thyrain Golem replacement in multicolor decks and as a Golem duplicate in monogreen, but I don’t think it’s for the best

Overall, I’d say your proposals put underplayed cards more in line with other cards, which would probably increase the number of played cards, but reduce the number of archetypes.

While balancing a game, you also have to keep in mind how does the power level varies long term. When you bring a new expansion, new cards have to be a bit OP if you want them to be played and the meta to be shaked. But if you don’t want the game to be a powercreep fest, you have to tune some cards down once in a while.

So even if players tend to prefer powercreep, at least temporarilly, you can’t balance a game with just “ups, not with nerfs”. You need both. And you need more nerfs than buffs, because new cards are introduced above average power level.

The problem with other card game is not adjusting the meta with nerfs. Adjucting the meta is good, and nerfs are necessary for that purpose. The problem is selling expansions with nerfs. The main reason to spend money on an expansion should be because it’s interesting, not because it’s broken. And the only reason to nerf should be balancing. I’m not a long enough player to tell, but I’d say Abbrakam does a great job to that regards.

No arguments were given why buffs are better then nerfs (we need both).

1 Like

I like the changes. The cheaper cards like Vine Wall and Gaea’s Grace seems a bit op. Shamanic Dance was actually used in the December Monthly Cup final, but has disappeared since then. New wisp sounds cool with the positional consideration and Chieftain is interesting for deck buidling. Making the expensive cards more accessible sounds good too.

The lower life ceiling for seedling make it less interesting though, but it’s pretty bad now. You missed Faeria Tree? Wish Tarum is less expensive, but I guess he is kind of a troll if semi-viable.

There are some legendaries that I think need to be buffed to see more play:

Iona - would be a lot more useful with 3 attack and Safeguard around her!
Krog - 2 attack 12 life is ridiculous! would make a lot more sense as a 4/8
Tarum - change cost to 12 faeria. Change ability to “Taunt. Take control of a random enemy land and make it a forest, once per turn”
Goki - Add a random treasure to Your hand
Day of the Dragons - Choose 2 dragons costing 3 faeria each
Aurora’s Dream - Change cost to 15. Draw 3 cards from your deck. They cost 0


Thanks for your time expressing your opinion. I’ll answer to your 3 posts :slight_smile:

I’ve made some changes to the list and explained a bit why for each cards. Have a look.

You misanderstood Vine Wall and Colossus : Vine wall gets bigger with the number of forest, it does not heal your Avatar (my card text wasn’t clear, I changed it) and Colossus reduces his cost with the number of taunt creatures you have played.

  • Agree with Shamanic Dance, I removed it.
  • Seedling : Not a good fan too of this kind of engine effect, I choosed to keep the orignal design of cards as much as possible. Just wait I make a neutral list for Imperial Engineer :stuck_out_tongue:
  • Tiki Totem : Yeah, 3f was too much. How about 2f ? :slight_smile:
  • Wisp : … Forgot to compare it with Golem… So, 2 options : keep it as a fun card or new design.
  • Seed Sower : -1 land req and removed the adjacent condition. I’m scared this card would be too much land ramp witht he others…
  • Soulbound Sagami : I’d be happy that my Soulbound is a target for a events or a frog tosser : I outvalue my oponent with the lastwords effect in this scenario.


Everyone asks for nerfs so I decided to ask for buffs :stuck_out_tongue:
+1 We need both, I wasn’t clear in my introduction.

You actually nerfed a number of cards in your proposals, and mostly already bad cards.

Tiki Totem (still), Soulbound Sagami, Sharra Dragonslayer, etc… Primeval Colossus is quite questionable too.

Shimmering statue is a huge nerf. If health was as important as attack, it would be much worse than even the current steam forge. And attack buff is better than health buff (and has more synergies, like tiki reveler). Your proposal would be unplayable. The 4 health taunt structure is at least hard to deal with for rushers (especially Y), and the heal offers some utility against rush and burn. Shimmering statue also currently sees some play along forbidden library.

Cartographer is a huge nerf, and overlaps more with explorer. Triggering a deathwish is not hard at all and explore gives more value than your card proposal.

Court Jester : you gain the value right now, but you lose control about what to buff, especially buffing haste or pseudo haste creature to use them later as an answer. Or simply big threat like battle rager who become much more threatening at 5 health, but that you can’t and don’t want to play right away. And court jester is not an underplayed card.

Plague bearer is an interesting change, but a huge nerf. The ability to deal damage from accross the map is very valuable, and you can build your deck accordingly. And 2/1 supports the angry archetype, and makes it much easier than 2/2 for you to trigger it, with falcon dive or famine, if needed (along possessed ursu, or just to clear the board)

Fortune hunter should be punishable by ground shaker. If you want to play around, you can play tiki piper.

Prairie yak : great, you put a cheap early harvester into the efficient range of common removal. Not all cards need to be flavor. Let some be just stats. (The idea of last wish create a prairie is not bad, but we need a diverse selection of raw stat card, prairie yak being one of those).

Tax collector loses combat synergy and becomes very situational. The new card looks interesting, but the current one is good (both design and stats wise) and does not need to be removed from the game.

War Yak : interesting change to a card which does not deserve to be removed from the game. But, I am against neutral lands related buff. Neutral should only grant you more lands. Also, i t would be OP : how does it compare to oak father?

Siege engine : Artificial enforcement of structure synergy, while deleting a subpar but interesting card which does not deserve so. If structures are bad, such a siege engine just won’t see play. If structure are good, it still won’t see play because worse than than current SE, worse than boulder thrower and worse than yakapult (structure oriented decks already go up to at least 3-4 spec lands anyway).

Explorers : significant nerf to a barely playable card. How does it compare to Lore thief and biomancer?

Sharra : huge nerf. Also, with such stats, she should be renamed, well, I don’t even know, maybe towship slayer? Boar slayer? It tells a lot about the many cards that are at 6 health, thus why at 5 attack, there would a lot of things she could no longer kill (in one strike). Plus you’re destroying any cost 7 potential synergy. Sharra’s ability is not something you want for cheap, it’s something you potentially want to buff, with embrace and what not. I think she is in a fine spot rn, no need to nerf her.

Steam forge enforcer, similar as siege engine, you’re destroying a useful card which does not deserve so for an artificial synergy. It should at the very least be attack buff if structures are present, but current enforcer is completely different (used in rush) and much better.

Walking Forteres : meh. Huge nerf.

The point of overcosted neutral cards is to be able to play them early, and far away, usually in the face of your opponent, sometimes in double collection. If you nerf them beyond the point of playability for some artificial synergy, structure is about the worst synergy pick, because by the time you have 2 (decent) structures on board, you got a lot more colored options, that are better even without the artificial synergy.

Once again, beside the structure synergy fetish, it looks like you turn exotic situational cards into generic bad cards.

1 Like