The proposed Armor 2.0 changes are quite uninspiring. It turns a good feature into a "meh" card game feature.
The proposed change as per the #balance updates channel at discord:
Any time an armored creature takes damage that reduces its health, it will also lose 1 armor.
Why this change? Well, over the course of Divine Order’s release we’ve found that armor is extremely powerful in any amount higher than 1, and has potential to cause lockout boardstates early. We think these changes allow higher armor amounts than 1 to exist without causing frequent toxic board states, but don’t take our word for it - Jump on the PTR, test it out, and tell us what you think!
I believe the above change is a bit overboard and I think there are some avenues that need to be explored before they go all out and make Armor seems like nothing more than additional health.
Here are some options that I think will make Armor more balanced but still good (and fun) to play:
Spells should ignore armor.
This is quite interesting to see if this will balance out armor a bit if it's ignored by spells or god powers. This can prevent deception from using Orfeo's Distraction to infinitely hiding armored creatures.
This also makes The Hunt and similar AOE removals effective again as these cards have been indirectly nerfed with the strength (or health) of Armored creatures.
We already have Ward and Protection against Magic spells. I don't see any reason why Armor should be another form of spell resistance.
Creatures with 5 or more health should not have more than 2 Armor.
That's a hard cap to prevent armor abuse by stacking armor buffs to an already beefy (shoutout GUDecks) creature.
or similarly
Adding more than 1 Armor to a creature with a health of 5 or more will decrease its health to the same amount in excess of 1 Armor.
If you want to stack armor for creatures with 5 or more health then it should come with a price -- such as trading 1 health for 1 armor.
So say your Guild Enforcer at 3/5 with Armor 1 gets buffed by Heart of Bronze (Give +1 Armor to each of your creatures) then your Guild Enforcer will become 3/4 With Armor 2.
This might be a bit complex but it's something that would allow Armor stacking without creating a toxic board state as mentioned by the balance team and would still make a formidable creature that can endure aggro attacks better than a creature with no armor.
CONCLUSION
I understand why GU team is tinkering with the Armor mechanic as there are so many Armor-based creature / spell cards that are not getting any play at the moment and it's such a shame not being able to use these cards in ladder.
That said I would like a more conservative approach to making armor less oppressive rather than going overboard the first time -- make it a gradual step.
Instead of Armor 2.0 why not make it Armor 1.1? It's a good mechanic -- it can be great but I think the GU balance team is skipping some steps here.
May the mulligans be in your favor!
I agree with you that the changes feel a little uninspiring. After reading your suggestions I feel like Armor should instead just be a keyword without any number attached to it. i.e. Armor so the max number is capped at 1 and behaves like the old armor mechanic. The crux of the issue is ultimately Armor > 1 but as you said, setting this new mechanic in place makes Armor basically feel like extra health except for creatures with Armor > 1.
Congratulations @seventy.seven! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):
Your next target is to reach 1250 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out the last post from @hivebuzz: