I'm a fan of the changes, and reducing the number of epics and commons means less chances for trash cards that have no purpose being crafted or opened from packs is cool too. Even if Blizzard still makes trash epics, it could mean less epics required for certain decks.
But all that aside, can we talk about how sick the Maiev art is on the cover of this thread?
So you're saying it takes the best part of Hearthstone and MtG, with the benefit of it being F2P friendly. The only downside is the UI is a little clunky.
Sarcasm aside, I don't actually enjoy the game as much as I thought I would. Something about the interaction and the combat mechanic feels very outlandish, but the new mechanics are very interesting. The game also feels a lot more draw dependent, if your opponent hits their powerful cards first and you can't find yours, you're likely to lose in a few turns. It's not as crushing as Magic (what with mana screwing and flooding), but it still feels bad. I will still give it a chance though, because while I don't want Hearthstone to get completely overtaken by this game, I do want some form of competition so that Blizzard is actually incentivised to do something.
This is exactly why cards in MtG and Hearthstone are worded differently. There are different requirements and mechanics in each game, and as a result, the wording needs to be changed to fit. In MtG, you have so much freedom on how you want to play the game through flash and instant speed cards, activating abilities on your opponent's turn, activating sagas using proliferate, etc. As a result, you need to know exactly when and how the card abilities work. In Hearthstone you don't have that freedom, and thus you just play the cards and the game takes care of the rest for you. In turn, Hearthstone doesn't need as much text to describe exactly when and how abilities trigger. One of my favourite examples is if Gral, the Shark was an MtG card, it would probably read like this: "When this enters the battlefield, search your library for a creature card, exile it and add +X/+X to Gral, the Shark where X is the attack and toughness of the creature. When Gral, the Shark dies, return the exiled creature into the battlefield under your control".
Is the solo adventure going to be in the format of RoS and SoU where it's like a dungeon run, or is it like the adventures of old where you have to make your own deck? Asking because I'm considering buying the prepurchase bundle, but I only started playing a year ago and my collection is pathetic so I highly doubt I'd be able to make decks to beat all the bosses.
The deck also runs Frizz Kindleroost to make it 7 mana. It's not there for the combo, it's more like you have a lot of late game big stuff that happens to be dragons so you put in Frizz, and then you're running soulfires so you might as well run Malygos since it's another big dragon that works with Frizz.
I'm liking the Dragon Handlock list, which plays very akin to the Handlock of old (I don't know how to use the deck command so I can't show it).
One thing I want to note, I am loving the way they are handling this new expansion. Smaller nerfs but more frequently, and across the board as opposed to against one deck. All that alongside getting 35 new cards - this is going to be a volatile meta. I was worried about how Blizzard had been handling the game ever since Year of the Raven, but Blizzard have really shown that they're taking a different route this time.
That said, I hope this sets an example for expansions to come. I'd rather have a storyline across the 3 expansions instead of 3 random detached ones, and I like the concept of splitting the classes up into groups. I hope they keep the nerf style for the upcoming expansions as well since that allows Blizzard to print more powerful cards (Galakrond Shaman is an exception. Dragon's Pack and Corrupt Elementalist are just insane), without the worry of interesting mechanics sinking to the bottom of the meta. The League of Evil have had their fun, and now it's the League of Explorer's turn to enjoy the limelight.
Hunter and Mage always seem to get cards that just look really good on the surface regardless of any synergies or whatever, and most of them end up and auto-includes. The most vivid examples I have are cards like Candleshot, Deathstalker Rexxar and Flanking Strike; cards that just feel like "well I have the foundation of my deck, I'll just add these cards that are insanely powerful in any scenario". To me, Mage seems to always get cards that are "just good" regardless of synergy, but that may just be my bias (I hate mage with a passion).
That's absolutely not true. Nerfs are but one example, expansion releases are another, and events like Doom in the Tomb can also be a reason. Even without these, there is no need for coincidence and luck. If a new deck rises that's able to beat other decks, it will rise in popularity, no ifs or buts about it (exhibit A: Quest Priest). If someone makes an entirely new deck then yes, luck is required for it to gain traction, but even still, it falls under the presumption of its matchup against the meta decks. If the said matchup is good, then the deck will rise in popularity, otherwise, it won't. There is no need for "momentum" or "coincidence" to change the meta.
I'm surprised that you don't have Stowaway in this deck given all your shuffles. Also, I found that Waxadred is sometimes too slow for the incredibly fast decks like Token Druid or Zoolock, so some teching may be required.
The whole problem is that it's only been 3 fucking days. Within 3 days, one deck has become so unbelievably strong that it has plagued over 50% of the current standard ladder, and the number is increasing. Even in mirrors, it's no longer about who can outplay the other player, it's about who can Invoke the fastest and play Galakrond first. There is no actual playmaking skill, it's "draw your deck, play Galakrond and hope your opponent doesn't". This is why combo decks are universally hated as well; they have no gameplan other than to survive long enough to play their combo to kill you, while you have no input in the matter. Control decks can be played around since they need to kill you as well, and therefore they cannot afford to run absolutely every removal tool. Combo decks, on the other hand, are able to do so, and as such have less outplay opportunities.
And besides, what's wrong with net decking? The whole point of the game is to win games to rank up; if it wasn't then Blizzard would give you stars for losing as well. If this is the case, then why shouldn't people net deck? It's simple logic: there's a strong deck, another deck rises that can beat the previous strong deck, people start playing that new deck because it beat the once-popular deck, now that's the strongest deck. While any deck has it's weaknesses and worst matchups (except for Galakrond Shaman), if those counter decks get smashed by other decks, there's no incentive to play it for the one favourable matchup, even if that matchup makes up over 50% of the ladder. This is the lifecycle of any game with a meta, not just Hearthstone, and if you can't grasp that basic concept, maybe you should take a step back from making sweeping statements and learn common sense. Galakrond Shaman is so unbelievably busted that their popularity as skyrocketed far and beyond what other decks can do to keep it in check.
People aren't complaining because their decks are losing to Galakrond Shaman, they're complaining because the ladder has been overrun with the same deck a million times over. The last time the ladder was so plagued was during Year of the Mammoth with Razakus Priest, but even that had decks which countered it. Galakrond Shaman creates an environment that is not fun and doesn't incentivise people to play. There is no longer any skill based on learning a deck to learn how to play the counter matchups, it has become a game of who can play what first. Not only is this a problem for the community, but this is also a problem for Blizzard. If people stop playing because the standard ladder is so plagued and the wild ladder isn't much better, people will shift over to Battlegrounds or quit the game entirely, both of which reduce the company's profits. This is the best move to appease the community and keep their revenue intact.
It seems pretty ambiguous, but there are some pretty big hints here and there. This is also the last thing before I'm off to sleep (I live in Singapore and it's 9:30 PM here), so I'll only be able to check your answers in 7-8 hours.
I agree, the simplistic and flavourful nature of Hearthstone is very appealing. Every single card (almost) shares the same art style, meaning even if the card comes from an entirely different theme (say, Rastakhan's Rumble vs. Boomsday Project), the cards still look similar and don't feel out of place. Hearthstone has somehow made a foundation for their cards' art that wonderfully mixes with anything no matter what. On the other hand, if you were to look at MtG, most cards (like Casualties of War, Questing Beast, The Great Henge, Vraska Golgari Queen, Teferi Hero of Dominaria) have gorgeous art. But then you see some cards whose art doesn't feel fitting (like Cauldron Familiar, WotS Ajani's Pridemate, Duress) or downright horrifying (like Child of Night, Drill Bit, Nightmare's Thirst, Thought Distortion). Other CCGs may not have this problem, but my perspective for card art is limited to MtG and Hearthstone for the most part.
As for any others, I'm actually not so sure. I love the idea of a Miracle/Tempo Rogue deck with Waxadred, but it doesn't seem like it would actuallybe very good in practice. Dragonqueen Alexstrasza seems really good and Highlander decks are quite strong even with just Zephrys the Great, but it feels like a card for a deck which I probably won't play.
I'm a fan of the changes, and reducing the number of epics and commons means less chances for trash cards that have no purpose being crafted or opened from packs is cool too. Even if Blizzard still makes trash epics, it could mean less epics required for certain decks.
But all that aside, can we talk about how sick the Maiev art is on the cover of this thread?
Don't like the meta? Don't play it. I will be enjoying this meta as the best one since WotOG.
So you're saying it takes the best part of Hearthstone and MtG, with the benefit of it being F2P friendly. The only downside is the UI is a little clunky.
Sarcasm aside, I don't actually enjoy the game as much as I thought I would. Something about the interaction and the combat mechanic feels very outlandish, but the new mechanics are very interesting. The game also feels a lot more draw dependent, if your opponent hits their powerful cards first and you can't find yours, you're likely to lose in a few turns. It's not as crushing as Magic (what with mana screwing and flooding), but it still feels bad. I will still give it a chance though, because while I don't want Hearthstone to get completely overtaken by this game, I do want some form of competition so that Blizzard is actually incentivised to do something.
This is exactly why cards in MtG and Hearthstone are worded differently. There are different requirements and mechanics in each game, and as a result, the wording needs to be changed to fit. In MtG, you have so much freedom on how you want to play the game through flash and instant speed cards, activating abilities on your opponent's turn, activating sagas using proliferate, etc. As a result, you need to know exactly when and how the card abilities work. In Hearthstone you don't have that freedom, and thus you just play the cards and the game takes care of the rest for you. In turn, Hearthstone doesn't need as much text to describe exactly when and how abilities trigger. One of my favourite examples is if Gral, the Shark was an MtG card, it would probably read like this: "When this enters the battlefield, search your library for a creature card, exile it and add +X/+X to Gral, the Shark where X is the attack and toughness of the creature. When Gral, the Shark dies, return the exiled creature into the battlefield under your control".
Is the solo adventure going to be in the format of RoS and SoU where it's like a dungeon run, or is it like the adventures of old where you have to make your own deck? Asking because I'm considering buying the prepurchase bundle, but I only started playing a year ago and my collection is pathetic so I highly doubt I'd be able to make decks to beat all the bosses.
The deck also runs Frizz Kindleroost to make it 7 mana. It's not there for the combo, it's more like you have a lot of late game big stuff that happens to be dragons so you put in Frizz, and then you're running soulfires so you might as well run Malygos since it's another big dragon that works with Frizz.
I'm liking the Dragon Handlock list, which plays very akin to the Handlock of old (I don't know how to use the deck command so I can't show it).
One thing I want to note, I am loving the way they are handling this new expansion. Smaller nerfs but more frequently, and across the board as opposed to against one deck. All that alongside getting 35 new cards - this is going to be a volatile meta. I was worried about how Blizzard had been handling the game ever since Year of the Raven, but Blizzard have really shown that they're taking a different route this time.
That said, I hope this sets an example for expansions to come. I'd rather have a storyline across the 3 expansions instead of 3 random detached ones, and I like the concept of splitting the classes up into groups. I hope they keep the nerf style for the upcoming expansions as well since that allows Blizzard to print more powerful cards (Galakrond Shaman is an exception. Dragon's Pack and Corrupt Elementalist are just insane), without the worry of interesting mechanics sinking to the bottom of the meta. The League of Evil have had their fun, and now it's the League of Explorer's turn to enjoy the limelight.
It's for the 15 damage TTK with Leeroy Jenkins, double Soulfire and Elven Archer after you play Alexstrasza. I prefer running Malygos and Zzeraku the Warped instead of the archers and Sunfury Protector instead of Leeroy, the combo is too clunky for me.
Hunter and Mage always seem to get cards that just look really good on the surface regardless of any synergies or whatever, and most of them end up and auto-includes. The most vivid examples I have are cards like Candleshot, Deathstalker Rexxar and Flanking Strike; cards that just feel like "well I have the foundation of my deck, I'll just add these cards that are insanely powerful in any scenario". To me, Mage seems to always get cards that are "just good" regardless of synergy, but that may just be my bias (I hate mage with a passion).
That's absolutely not true. Nerfs are but one example, expansion releases are another, and events like Doom in the Tomb can also be a reason. Even without these, there is no need for coincidence and luck. If a new deck rises that's able to beat other decks, it will rise in popularity, no ifs or buts about it (exhibit A: Quest Priest). If someone makes an entirely new deck then yes, luck is required for it to gain traction, but even still, it falls under the presumption of its matchup against the meta decks. If the said matchup is good, then the deck will rise in popularity, otherwise, it won't. There is no need for "momentum" or "coincidence" to change the meta.
I'm surprised that you don't have Stowaway in this deck given all your shuffles. Also, I found that Waxadred is sometimes too slow for the incredibly fast decks like Token Druid or Zoolock, so some teching may be required.
The whole problem is that it's only been 3 fucking days. Within 3 days, one deck has become so unbelievably strong that it has plagued over 50% of the current standard ladder, and the number is increasing. Even in mirrors, it's no longer about who can outplay the other player, it's about who can Invoke the fastest and play Galakrond first. There is no actual playmaking skill, it's "draw your deck, play Galakrond and hope your opponent doesn't". This is why combo decks are universally hated as well; they have no gameplan other than to survive long enough to play their combo to kill you, while you have no input in the matter. Control decks can be played around since they need to kill you as well, and therefore they cannot afford to run absolutely every removal tool. Combo decks, on the other hand, are able to do so, and as such have less outplay opportunities.
And besides, what's wrong with net decking? The whole point of the game is to win games to rank up; if it wasn't then Blizzard would give you stars for losing as well. If this is the case, then why shouldn't people net deck? It's simple logic: there's a strong deck, another deck rises that can beat the previous strong deck, people start playing that new deck because it beat the once-popular deck, now that's the strongest deck. While any deck has it's weaknesses and worst matchups (except for Galakrond Shaman), if those counter decks get smashed by other decks, there's no incentive to play it for the one favourable matchup, even if that matchup makes up over 50% of the ladder. This is the lifecycle of any game with a meta, not just Hearthstone, and if you can't grasp that basic concept, maybe you should take a step back from making sweeping statements and learn common sense. Galakrond Shaman is so unbelievably busted that their popularity as skyrocketed far and beyond what other decks can do to keep it in check.
People aren't complaining because their decks are losing to Galakrond Shaman, they're complaining because the ladder has been overrun with the same deck a million times over. The last time the ladder was so plagued was during Year of the Mammoth with Razakus Priest, but even that had decks which countered it. Galakrond Shaman creates an environment that is not fun and doesn't incentivise people to play. There is no longer any skill based on learning a deck to learn how to play the counter matchups, it has become a game of who can play what first. Not only is this a problem for the community, but this is also a problem for Blizzard. If people stop playing because the standard ladder is so plagued and the wild ladder isn't much better, people will shift over to Battlegrounds or quit the game entirely, both of which reduce the company's profits. This is the best move to appease the community and keep their revenue intact.
I am absolutely stumped... my best guess is probably Gladiator's Longbow.
The first line indicates something to do with a weapon.
The second line could refer to take on a challenge, and maybe "let me hurray" could mean winning a fight against someone.
The third line probably relates to the Hunter class and killing lots of stuff.
The last line could mean it's not a common card, and "bulky prey" could mean it has a lot of attack.
My second guess is Gorehowl, considering it is a blade and it has a lot of attack, but it has nothing to do with Hunters at all.
Correct. Seems it was easier than I anticipated. You're next.
Dire Mole: Am I a joke to you?
It is yet to be unleashed,
A power your deck can't handle.
Flames brighter than Rakanishu,
"You no take candle!".
It seems pretty ambiguous, but there are some pretty big hints here and there. This is also the last thing before I'm off to sleep (I live in Singapore and it's 9:30 PM here), so I'll only be able to check your answers in 7-8 hours.
Then my best guess is Ivory Knight.
They say Death will ride me - "Then I looked and saw a pale horse; the rider's name was Death".
But yet I help you recover - Ivory Knight can heal you, helping you recover
Check me out and see,
A brand new game to discover - Loyce Knights from Dark Souls 2? They help kill the Ivory King boss, but again, feels like a stretch,.
I agree, the simplistic and flavourful nature of Hearthstone is very appealing. Every single card (almost) shares the same art style, meaning even if the card comes from an entirely different theme (say, Rastakhan's Rumble vs. Boomsday Project), the cards still look similar and don't feel out of place. Hearthstone has somehow made a foundation for their cards' art that wonderfully mixes with anything no matter what. On the other hand, if you were to look at MtG, most cards (like Casualties of War, Questing Beast, The Great Henge, Vraska Golgari Queen, Teferi Hero of Dominaria) have gorgeous art. But then you see some cards whose art doesn't feel fitting (like Cauldron Familiar, WotS Ajani's Pridemate, Duress) or downright horrifying (like Child of Night, Drill Bit, Nightmare's Thirst, Thought Distortion). Other CCGs may not have this problem, but my perspective for card art is limited to MtG and Hearthstone for the most part.
Is it Uther of the Ebon Blade?
They say Death will ride me, - Deathlord Nazgrim is one of the potential Horsemen and his voiceline is "Death was merely a setback"
But yet I help you recover, - The weapon Grave Vengeance heals you, and you also get 5 armour when played
Check me out and see,
A brand new game to discover. - Knight of the Ebon Legion is a card from MtG, but this feels like a stretch.
Both Frizz Kindleroost and Kronx Dragonhoof seem like the must-haves for this set for Dragon decks or Galakrond decks respectively.
As for any others, I'm actually not so sure. I love the idea of a Miracle/Tempo Rogue deck with Waxadred, but it doesn't seem like it would actuallybe very good in practice. Dragonqueen Alexstrasza seems really good and Highlander decks are quite strong even with just Zephrys the Great, but it feels like a card for a deck which I probably won't play.