I did not like this expansion when it first dropped and struggled to find what I wanted to do with it after losing countless games with the deck that carried me to gold last season, I nearly quit. Then I built a deck specifically to deal with star spring bullshit and I’ve won 70% of the games against star spring since then. I feel comfortable against every deck if I draw the right cards I can beat every match up. Most loses are still to aggro but there are less of them. I have howling abyss in my deck I didn’t think much of it at first but the free extra card per turn just pushing me over the top my goal is to stall my opponent and then grind them down. Had to add some aggression to my deck after getting 3 +20 round games but now I am able to knock down deep and Sol decks and live long enough to mostly stall aggro. I built to fight star spring didn’t think I would enjoy that but i am.
very thankful for the Hush and Bastion nerf.
Landmarks feel very powerful to me. But with star spring reducing the appearance of aggro decks I guess I’m ok with it
What deck are you using that uses Howling Abyss and is able to deal with star spring decks? I find star spring decks IMMENSELY annoying to deal with because they just sit there grinding out wins with Tahm and Soraka, and then use sorakas wish to either prevent clears or to win instantly.
Not gonna lie, I'm happy to see another ETC card after so long (since Beta).
Will say this much about the reveal though. I know Trump's shtick is being cringey, but this just seemed excessive, even for him. I legit had to skip past him playing "metal" music and go straight to the actual gameplay part of the reveal.
It's a powercreep nonetheless. Fire Elemental is the closest thing to it, but still much weaker. Also many times weaker than Lord of the Arena. These are existing cards, too and they don't have that much of a swing just because it's in late game.
It won't be strange if Hearthstone Team will bump up the stats on all the high cost cards when reworking Classic and Basic.
Sorry but I'm gonna be "that guy" for a second.
Fire elemental deals 3 battlecry damage which allows you to remove a threat or go face without any damage taken.
This gives you a 3/3 weapon, which while it does provide more value, requires you to hit whatever with your hero. This in itself may be "valuetown" to have "9 damage" from the weapon, but it doesn't exactly pan out to be that way due to interactions with minions/etc. (i.e. taunt, lifesteal, etc).
Secondly you can't count something as powercreep over a neutral minion. The devs have explicity stated that class cards ARE and WILL BE more powerful than neutrals on most occasions. Neutral minions are generally there to give specific tools to ALL classes, as such they have to be weaker for the most part otherwise you end up with what classic hearthstone had: Azure Drake in every deck.
Unless you use a removal spell. And people wonder why decks like pure paladin or stall priest exist. They may bitch about it, but this is the reason those decks DO exist. If you keep giving an aggro class MORE burn/face options, be prepared to fight the most annoying counter-meta decks.
Yes, but buffing the Crimson units has the problem of making them viable in non-vlad decks (see Crimson Disciple. And this causes an issue of supposedly buffing ONE archetype (vlad/self damage units) but inherently buffing other archetypes (spider/darius aggro) which didn't need buffs.
This is why the only real way of reworking vlad is by reworking his champion himself, you cause ripple effects if you try to buff the crimson archetype units to help vlad, cause other people will find ways of shoehorning them into other decks.
My solution was to give him the passive “damaged allies have +1|+0 while attacking” on level 1 (and it upgrades to +3|+0 on level 2). That way he’s a bit like Hecarim.
This makes him too aggro-y in my opinion. And Vlad is already in a deck that is built on the bones of Noxus, it doesn't need MORE damage already. The current problem as others have stated is that his passive already weakens his board. Giving his units more attack doesn't really help in that, just makes him better at attacking but doesn't do anything when defending.
IMO:
Level 1 Vlad should have baseline regen added. Current effect is still the same. (Drain 1 health to deal 1 extra damage to nexus per health drained)
Level 2 Vlad should have "Drain 1 health from ALL units: For each ally drained, Drain 1 from the enemy nexus, for each enemy drained: Vlad gains 1 health.
This makes Vlad a more interesting hero that punishes wide enemy boards, Makes sense in his LoL champion where he uses enemy hero's blood to help defend himself, makes him more tanky as a result.
This has got to be one of the most forced things i've seen. Whole thing feels shallow, made just for money. Harrowing event would have been much better. Oh well, at least the spells are interesting, even though the shiny crystal popstar animations don't fit the game at all...
Yup.
It's a shame that one of the things I enjoyed was the lore and the interactions between the cards and champions. Having them acknowledge each other and the such. Guess they took a page out of Hearthstone's book and said "hey hearthstone has wacky alternative universe stuff in it, so we should too!"
But the reason I enjoyed this over hearthstone was because of that lack of "silly" shit. I'll play the game for now, but I'll be honest, this is a strike against them. I've been encouraging some of my hearthstone friends to play this game because it has a different feel to it (not quit hearthstone, just try this out). But if they continue to cram this KPop and other absurd stuff down our throats I'll be sure to stop encouraging people to play this.
You hear that Riot? If you are reading this at all, If it comes down to making me choose between the silliness of hearthstone and the absurdness of LoR...I'm going with Hearthstone. The devil that I know is better than the devil that I don't.
Shen emote would have a higher win rate, but some people like to open with him.
My takeway from this is that they have no idea how to fix underpowered archetypes, and no idea how to bring the most overpowered ones (aggro and burn) into check. So they faff about in the middle ground, hoping people will find that interesting in spite of everything else.
The only way to keep aggro/burn decks in check is to make one sided board clears available. I may be wrong, but most board clears in the game right now hit both sides. The only exception I'm aware of is ASol's Skies Descend spell.
Another alternative to control aggro would be to create more units like monkey idol available or dragonling available. Units that provide unique benefits, but weak stats at a temporary cost (ephemeral).
Another idea I had would be units that can be summoned with a burst spell (similar to the mistwraith spell that SI currently has) but would have the text "This unit has ephemeral while attacking and lifesteal while blocking"
Something like this: (apologies for the crude design, just spit balling here).
Landmarks remind me of an early online card game I used to play that had a similar unit to landmarks.
In Might and Magic: Duel of Champions they had special ongoing effects you can play. They were destroyable, (far easier than landmarks are) but they provided tangible long term buffs like (all units have +1/+1). You could even have two of them in play at the same time (so for certain races, you could get +2/+2 to all units).
I don't know how I feel about landmarks because honestly, the only one that seems broken is Star Spring. The others don't really have "when X happens, you win". But for some reason star spring does. I feel like star spring just needs to have it's alternate win condition removed, and then slightly buffed.
Perhaps here is how it could go:
At the end of the round heal all units by one. If all units are already at full health, give the highest and lowest cost unit +1 health instead.
This way it's encouraging you to stack health, which invariably is a good strategy with soraka. And feeds into your win condition of being able to outheal/outlast your opponent, without straight up giving you "when X amount is healed, you win". Which to me feels cheap, and honestly doesn't match up with the rest of the landmarks.
This one worked really well for me over the past week, and who doesn't love racking up some wins with a misfit like Shaman?
Don't know if I'd classify shaman as a misfit except for first 2 years of hearthstone when shaman was considered super bad. Once they got overload synergy and overcosted overload minions (4 mana 7/7) they haven't really been a meme.
I don't even play cyclone mage. I play highlander casino mage. It's just a fun deck to mess around with.
Sure it isn't super consistent, but the plays can make for some laughably fun games. But instead of nerfing paladin's ability to win if they stick a minion to the board, soul DH's ability to draw their their deck and ignore minions while going face, or face hunter "I never TRULY get nerfed" deck, they decide to nerf mage for reasons I can't fathom. (yes I read the blizzard article and their "reasons" for nerfing, still doesn't exactly justify mage nerfs with other decks performing BETTER than mage is).
Sorry but I disagree, aggro decks are not complex. I've played them, I've even sucumbbed to using them to hit legend a few times. It's never a complex situation. Either my opponent ends up drawing, healing, or clearing enough that the aggro deck I pilot runs out of gas. Or they don't, and I win. It's never been complex. Maybe to some it is, and in the aggro vs aggro matchup it's slightly more nuanced, but overall it's not a complex situation. Never has been, never will. That's why aggro is gravitated towards.
Before I reply more in depth. Are you saying that the RNG from cyclone mages in standard is "more acceptable" then the RNG from highlander mages?
I enjoy playing mage right now because it's just that RNG. It's why Casino Mage got it's nickname back in the day. Yes, there's a high level of RNG, but the variance hurts mage players just as often as it helps. Because you tend to remember the times you lost to those multiple discovered Primes, doesn't mean that the mage didn't go on to lose 3 times after that cause their YoggBox cast 4 draw spells and burned and fatigued them.
The problem with Hunter isn't that there's any egregious card that is to "blame" but the simple fact that they have had hardly any nerfs. They aren't a top dog in terms of their meta viability, but at the same time they are never bottom rung either.
What this ends up doing is making face hunter the quintessential 'fall back' option for people climbing ladder. (along with any other flavor of the month decks).
The problem there is that while the deck is counterable, it's fast game times coupled with it's smorc mentality creates a high meta presence that warps the ability for other decks to flourish.
On top of that, Hearthstone ends up being too favorable towards aggro decks due to the way the game is inherently designed (only specific taunt units can act as blockers, but the opponent gets to choose).
In a nutshell I've never been a huge fan of "vomit decks". Zoolock, Face hunter, even Demon Hunter either prey on the low statistical variance that you'll get the cards you need: (In the case of zoolock it's always been...did you draw aoe? Congrats you win. If not, you lose. Same thing with face hunter and demon hunter....Did you draw healing and/or aoe? congrats you win, if not. You lose)
Those aforementioned scenarios occur because hearthstone has very few tutor cards, and don't allow more control over how you survive games. Overall for me personally it just leaves a sour taste in my mouth whenever I have attempted to play aggro decks. (like, this is cheap...why am I playing this?)
Fundamentally the big problem is the class hero powers that force archetypes. But that's a topic for another time.
Jokes/Memes aside. While I understand the premise of going Ionia (easy access to Deny, will of ionia, etc) it's regional power being used as a fallback option undermines the deck's meme-worthiness.
Also the deck loses outright to landmark removal or karma removal. To me Targon seems like a good natural pairing, and I'm sure other regions would have some viability as well.
@OldManSanns I agree that Terror of the Tides is not very greatly designed, but I think the problem stems from that it forces a particular region synergy that limits your possibilities.
Terror of the Tides being SI means you are effectively forced to run Bilgewater/SI Decks. Contrary to that, Kadregrin is part of Demacia which already has decent dragons and doesn't force it to pair with another region allowing it more flexibility in your supporting region archetypes.
I agree that Terror of the Tides is a win more card, but the difference between the two is that terror of the tides is meant to close out a game (by giving enemies -2, and making sea monsters have fearsome it's intended effect is to nullify any blockers by weakening so the opponent just can't block as much or as effectively). The other main difference is that TOTT once removed, nullifies the fearsome effect. Kadregin's "everywhere" effect, won't be nullified.
Lastly, TOTT in order to be a decent statline requires you to be deep (6/5 for 8 mana is bad, even with it's effect, 9/8 is much better). If you consider the fact that Kadregin is a 9/6, with no similar "deep condition". It's a much more viable late game solo play than TOTT is.
In short when evaluating this in multiple scenarios: TOTT fails when you have no other sea monsters on board as it's statline is sub-par when not deep, and even when deep requires other sea monsters to be on the board to really leverage it's effect. Kadregrin's statline is base value, doesn't require other minions to be effective on it's own, and it's special effect is ongoing even if it's removed from the board.
So while both cards may be "win more" cards. Kadregrin is much more likely to see play given all the reasons I stated above.
Just as an Idea: how about telling from time to time why you dislike certain comments instead of just downvoting them?
Because that's not how the forum works? If someone disagrees they are allowed to just downvote your opinion.
It is not productive at all if you just say "I don't like that oppinion " because that is not what get us anwhere on this forum.
We are here to discuss aren't we?
Depends, many people find certain types of comments abrasive or offputting. If you make a statement that is very polarizing and doesn't leave any room for people to actually discuss most people will just downvote and move on as opposed to discuss it.
And it should also be legit to give negative feedback about new content right?
If you bring up points, one can discuss them. If you just go like: thats a bad oppinion or I don't like this guy so i dislike his comments well... then this forum is pointless
People will disagree with you in life. It's best to not get upset when someone disagrees with you, either overtly or discreetly.
Now, let me respond to your other comment quote below. Responses for this will also in Orange.
Quote From TheTriferianGeneral
To me, the entire dragon archetype looks like an attempt to lure hearthstone players into Legends of Runeterra,
And this is a bad thing…why? Your opening statement makes it seem like if someone plays hearthstone they are simple minded and can't grasp the superior complexity of LoR. (sarcasm) And therefore luring people from hearthstone is making the game worse. In short your opening statement is a passive form of gatekeeping.
It reeks of Hearthstone card design and represents a Statstick tribal playstyle that is easy to grasp but ultimately very vanilla and unappealing to players like me to want to build stronger and more versatile decks.
Again, "reeks of Hearthstone card design" is not a way to foster any open communication. You do realize there are plenty of people who play BOTH games for different reasons, yes? I enjoy both LoR and HS for different reasons. They have similarities obviously being in the same type of game, but have pretty big differences too. Each makes them enjoyable for different people in different ways. Also, something not being appealing to you does not mean that it doesn't deserve to be in the game.
With shyvana you are going to have the bigger units for sure but will you win the game like that? I doubt it.
Conjecture. Moving on.
The archetype will for sure have a high average winrate because it is so simple to play.
Also conjecture in multiple assumptions. And yet somehow contradicts the very last sentence you made. In the previous sentence you said "but will you win the game? I doubt it." And then in the very next one you say it will have an average high winrate because it's so simple to play. You can make conjecture, but it helps if you actually stick with the same story instead of flip flopping your opinion every other sentence.
Will it shape top tier? Well that would really surprise me. But I don't mind getting surprised.
Maybe it is enough to have raw stats in order to win games…
You asked for someone to respond why they were downvoting you, so I obliged.
so it's a minimum of a 11/8 when played at least. but 9 mana.. damn that's expensive
wonder if you can actually cheat this out somehow.. since it's "summoned"
agree with forty dust too much timmy.
Just want to say that the card states other so it's just a 9 Mana 9/6 unfortunately. I also think it's too Timmy to be playable, but this card could be a Warmother's deck to be in Demacia.
Can we please stop with the passive aggressive name calling?
You and the 3 others who keep using "timmy". I'm fully aware its the MTG player types. Treat it as such. Stop trying to say a card is "too timmy". When you do it, you turn it into a neutral term that describes a playstyle into a pejorative term that essentially insults anyone who would think the card is good or would see play.
And contrary to popular belief you generally don't fit into a single archetype. Most players are a mesh of 2 out of the 3 archetypes (Johnny, Spike, Timmy).
Now if you think the card is bad, just say so and explain why. Now back to the card text...
For me personally I think the card is decent. It's cosmic inspiration on a stick for 2 more mana. Being on a stick makes it better since you get the effect at the same time as a body. It's aggressive statline means it's good for trading up. To balance the fact that it's Cosmic Inspiration on a stick, it only affects dragons which means deckbuilding wise you don't want to include a ton of non-dragon types otherwise you aren't getting as much value. I think it's a fair card that will see play, especially if people can find a way to cheat it out.
What deck are you using that uses Howling Abyss and is able to deal with star spring decks? I find star spring decks IMMENSELY annoying to deal with because they just sit there grinding out wins with Tahm and Soraka, and then use sorakas wish to either prevent clears or to win instantly.
Not gonna lie, I'm happy to see another ETC card after so long (since Beta).
Will say this much about the reveal though. I know Trump's shtick is being cringey, but this just seemed excessive, even for him. I legit had to skip past him playing "metal" music and go straight to the actual gameplay part of the reveal.
Sorry but I'm gonna be "that guy" for a second.
Fire elemental deals 3 battlecry damage which allows you to remove a threat or go face without any damage taken.
This gives you a 3/3 weapon, which while it does provide more value, requires you to hit whatever with your hero. This in itself may be "valuetown" to have "9 damage" from the weapon, but it doesn't exactly pan out to be that way due to interactions with minions/etc. (i.e. taunt, lifesteal, etc).
Secondly you can't count something as powercreep over a neutral minion. The devs have explicity stated that class cards ARE and WILL BE more powerful than neutrals on most occasions. Neutral minions are generally there to give specific tools to ALL classes, as such they have to be weaker for the most part otherwise you end up with what classic hearthstone had: Azure Drake in every deck.
Unless you use a removal spell. And people wonder why decks like pure paladin or stall priest exist. They may bitch about it, but this is the reason those decks DO exist. If you keep giving an aggro class MORE burn/face options, be prepared to fight the most annoying counter-meta decks.
And yet blizzard still refuses to nerf hunter.
Blizzard's reaction to players asking for balanced meta decks:
Yes, but buffing the Crimson units has the problem of making them viable in non-vlad decks (see Crimson Disciple. And this causes an issue of supposedly buffing ONE archetype (vlad/self damage units) but inherently buffing other archetypes (spider/darius aggro) which didn't need buffs.
This is why the only real way of reworking vlad is by reworking his champion himself, you cause ripple effects if you try to buff the crimson archetype units to help vlad, cause other people will find ways of shoehorning them into other decks.
This makes him too aggro-y in my opinion. And Vlad is already in a deck that is built on the bones of Noxus, it doesn't need MORE damage already. The current problem as others have stated is that his passive already weakens his board. Giving his units more attack doesn't really help in that, just makes him better at attacking but doesn't do anything when defending.
IMO:
Level 1 Vlad should have baseline regen added. Current effect is still the same. (Drain 1 health to deal 1 extra damage to nexus per health drained)
Level 2 Vlad should have "Drain 1 health from ALL units: For each ally drained, Drain 1 from the enemy nexus, for each enemy drained: Vlad gains 1 health.
This makes Vlad a more interesting hero that punishes wide enemy boards, Makes sense in his LoL champion where he uses enemy hero's blood to help defend himself, makes him more tanky as a result.
Yup.
It's a shame that one of the things I enjoyed was the lore and the interactions between the cards and champions. Having them acknowledge each other and the such. Guess they took a page out of Hearthstone's book and said "hey hearthstone has wacky alternative universe stuff in it, so we should too!"
But the reason I enjoyed this over hearthstone was because of that lack of "silly" shit. I'll play the game for now, but I'll be honest, this is a strike against them. I've been encouraging some of my hearthstone friends to play this game because it has a different feel to it (not quit hearthstone, just try this out). But if they continue to cram this KPop and other absurd stuff down our throats I'll be sure to stop encouraging people to play this.
You hear that Riot? If you are reading this at all, If it comes down to making me choose between the silliness of hearthstone and the absurdness of LoR...I'm going with Hearthstone. The devil that I know is better than the devil that I don't.
The only way to keep aggro/burn decks in check is to make one sided board clears available. I may be wrong, but most board clears in the game right now hit both sides. The only exception I'm aware of is ASol's Skies Descend spell.
Another alternative to control aggro would be to create more units like monkey idol available or dragonling available. Units that provide unique benefits, but weak stats at a temporary cost (ephemeral).
Another idea I had would be units that can be summoned with a burst spell (similar to the mistwraith spell that SI currently has) but would have the text "This unit has ephemeral while attacking and lifesteal while blocking"
Something like this: (apologies for the crude design, just spit balling here).
Landmarks remind me of an early online card game I used to play that had a similar unit to landmarks.
In Might and Magic: Duel of Champions they had special ongoing effects you can play. They were destroyable, (far easier than landmarks are) but they provided tangible long term buffs like (all units have +1/+1). You could even have two of them in play at the same time (so for certain races, you could get +2/+2 to all units).
I don't know how I feel about landmarks because honestly, the only one that seems broken is Star Spring. The others don't really have "when X happens, you win". But for some reason star spring does. I feel like star spring just needs to have it's alternate win condition removed, and then slightly buffed.
Perhaps here is how it could go:
At the end of the round heal all units by one. If all units are already at full health, give the highest and lowest cost unit +1 health instead.
This way it's encouraging you to stack health, which invariably is a good strategy with soraka. And feeds into your win condition of being able to outheal/outlast your opponent, without straight up giving you "when X amount is healed, you win". Which to me feels cheap, and honestly doesn't match up with the rest of the landmarks.
Don't know if I'd classify shaman as a misfit except for first 2 years of hearthstone when shaman was considered super bad. Once they got overload synergy and overcosted overload minions (4 mana 7/7) they haven't really been a meme.
I know right?
I don't even play cyclone mage. I play highlander casino mage. It's just a fun deck to mess around with.
Sure it isn't super consistent, but the plays can make for some laughably fun games. But instead of nerfing paladin's ability to win if they stick a minion to the board, soul DH's ability to draw their their deck and ignore minions while going face, or face hunter "I never TRULY get nerfed" deck, they decide to nerf mage for reasons I can't fathom. (yes I read the blizzard article and their "reasons" for nerfing, still doesn't exactly justify mage nerfs with other decks performing BETTER than mage is).
Sorry but I disagree, aggro decks are not complex. I've played them, I've even sucumbbed to using them to hit legend a few times. It's never a complex situation. Either my opponent ends up drawing, healing, or clearing enough that the aggro deck I pilot runs out of gas. Or they don't, and I win. It's never been complex. Maybe to some it is, and in the aggro vs aggro matchup it's slightly more nuanced, but overall it's not a complex situation. Never has been, never will. That's why aggro is gravitated towards.
Before I reply more in depth. Are you saying that the RNG from cyclone mages in standard is "more acceptable" then the RNG from highlander mages?
I enjoy playing mage right now because it's just that RNG. It's why Casino Mage got it's nickname back in the day. Yes, there's a high level of RNG, but the variance hurts mage players just as often as it helps. Because you tend to remember the times you lost to those multiple discovered Primes, doesn't mean that the mage didn't go on to lose 3 times after that cause their YoggBox cast 4 draw spells and burned and fatigued them.
The problem with Hunter isn't that there's any egregious card that is to "blame" but the simple fact that they have had hardly any nerfs. They aren't a top dog in terms of their meta viability, but at the same time they are never bottom rung either.
What this ends up doing is making face hunter the quintessential 'fall back' option for people climbing ladder. (along with any other flavor of the month decks).
The problem there is that while the deck is counterable, it's fast game times coupled with it's smorc mentality creates a high meta presence that warps the ability for other decks to flourish.
On top of that, Hearthstone ends up being too favorable towards aggro decks due to the way the game is inherently designed (only specific taunt units can act as blockers, but the opponent gets to choose).
In a nutshell I've never been a huge fan of "vomit decks". Zoolock, Face hunter, even Demon Hunter either prey on the low statistical variance that you'll get the cards you need: (In the case of zoolock it's always been...did you draw aoe? Congrats you win. If not, you lose. Same thing with face hunter and demon hunter....Did you draw healing and/or aoe? congrats you win, if not. You lose)
Those aforementioned scenarios occur because hearthstone has very few tutor cards, and don't allow more control over how you survive games. Overall for me personally it just leaves a sour taste in my mouth whenever I have attempted to play aggro decks. (like, this is cheap...why am I playing this?)
Fundamentally the big problem is the class hero powers that force archetypes. But that's a topic for another time.
Jokes/Memes aside. While I understand the premise of going Ionia (easy access to Deny, will of ionia, etc) it's regional power being used as a fallback option undermines the deck's meme-worthiness.
Also the deck loses outright to landmark removal or karma removal. To me Targon seems like a good natural pairing, and I'm sure other regions would have some viability as well.
Agreed Parrot.
Not to mention the post pretty boils down to...
"Hi we've heard your concerns...and we really don't care, we are going to do this event anyways."
The vibe I get from riot is pretty much this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsW9MlYu31g
@OldManSanns I agree that Terror of the Tides is not very greatly designed, but I think the problem stems from that it forces a particular region synergy that limits your possibilities.
Terror of the Tides being SI means you are effectively forced to run Bilgewater/SI Decks. Contrary to that, Kadregrin is part of Demacia which already has decent dragons and doesn't force it to pair with another region allowing it more flexibility in your supporting region archetypes.
I agree that Terror of the Tides is a win more card, but the difference between the two is that terror of the tides is meant to close out a game (by giving enemies -2, and making sea monsters have fearsome it's intended effect is to nullify any blockers by weakening so the opponent just can't block as much or as effectively). The other main difference is that TOTT once removed, nullifies the fearsome effect. Kadregin's "everywhere" effect, won't be nullified.
Lastly, TOTT in order to be a decent statline requires you to be deep (6/5 for 8 mana is bad, even with it's effect, 9/8 is much better). If you consider the fact that Kadregin is a 9/6, with no similar "deep condition". It's a much more viable late game solo play than TOTT is.
In short when evaluating this in multiple scenarios: TOTT fails when you have no other sea monsters on board as it's statline is sub-par when not deep, and even when deep requires other sea monsters to be on the board to really leverage it's effect. Kadregrin's statline is base value, doesn't require other minions to be effective on it's own, and it's special effect is ongoing even if it's removed from the board.
So while both cards may be "win more" cards. Kadregrin is much more likely to see play given all the reasons I stated above.
Now, let me respond to your other comment quote below. Responses for this will also in Orange.
You asked for someone to respond why they were downvoting you, so I obliged.
Can we please stop with the passive aggressive name calling?
You and the 3 others who keep using "timmy". I'm fully aware its the MTG player types. Treat it as such. Stop trying to say a card is "too timmy". When you do it, you turn it into a neutral term that describes a playstyle into a pejorative term that essentially insults anyone who would think the card is good or would see play.
And contrary to popular belief you generally don't fit into a single archetype. Most players are a mesh of 2 out of the 3 archetypes (Johnny, Spike, Timmy).
Now if you think the card is bad, just say so and explain why. Now back to the card text...
For me personally I think the card is decent. It's cosmic inspiration on a stick for 2 more mana. Being on a stick makes it better since you get the effect at the same time as a body. It's aggressive statline means it's good for trading up. To balance the fact that it's Cosmic Inspiration on a stick, it only affects dragons which means deckbuilding wise you don't want to include a ton of non-dragon types otherwise you aren't getting as much value. I think it's a fair card that will see play, especially if people can find a way to cheat it out.