I know it's missing the new expansion (which will drop tomorrow) but I just played Stonehill Defender (on a new draft done today) and discovered Zilliax. (A boomsday card which by all accounts SHOULDN'T be in the arena rotation at all.)
Mark my words, reborn is going to be good for priests. They will be the only class able to consistently capitalize on the reborn effect giving minions 1 health. They will be able to trade, and then heal up the reborn minion to gain more value out of the card. Priest is going to be a top pick I bet in constructed.
Honorable mention will go to heal druid and paladin. Druid probably wishes this card had 1 more health so it can trigger the +5 healing needed for Lucentbark, but still, something to worth noting.
Noone is blinded for hype. They are just tired of people saying "woops, it's vulnerable to silence or sap...guess it's a bad card! hurr durr!"
(i.e. You!)
For the record, GENERALLY SPEAKING...any card that gives a minion divine shield, people only play when a minion survives to pop the shield immediately. Meaning in terms of a SMART player, getting value out of this; even against Plague of Murlocs....You'll gain +4 attack and a body that survives with taunt.
Honestly my favorite card so far is Desert Obelisk. Reason is, even though it's got horrible stats, it's one of those cards that you can spend hours trying to build a deck around to make it work. It seems like it won't be the greatest value card, but definitely the most interesting one that will show up in potential Trolden video's in the future! :)
I know the plethora of "Another one gone" and "More rats jumping a ship" comments will be on here, but there's a very obvious reality here: The 3 original founders are getting old.
I don't know their specific ages, but they founded Silicon and Synapse back in '91 right after graduating UCLA. That would put them at somewhere around age 22 back then. It's been 28 years since then. That means they are probably in their 50's. They have seen their company grow to dizzying heights of success; and probably have been compensated for it immensely; in more ways then just financially too.
I know that people like to think the worst of blizzard, and it's always a popular to hate-train on them; but the fact of the matter is; companies change and so do people. Enjoy what they founded for us.
They gave us the classics: Starcraft, Warcraft, and Diablo. We've enjoyed almost 3 decades of games from Blizzard's founders. It's time to let them retire, move on and enjoy what he said he plans on enjoying; music, the outdoors; and life.
Half assed my way through in 29.36 as bomb warrior.
I just completed another bomb warrior run in 33 minutes. I'd say to anyone looking to win this rather easily; pick warrior; choose "Bombs Away" "Armored Up" or "Iron and Steel" buckets whenever you see them in that priority. E
Objectively strong card, but 7 damage aoe is just one damage short of clearing boards full of 8 hp minions like Mountain Giant, which is the biggest issue of control shaman right now in my opinion. Due to Hex and Earth Shock we can deal with deathrattle decks pretty good anyway.
Spellpower totem, or Good ole' Bloodmage Thalnos should do the trick there.
We've got achievements done and they'll be coming out this week. Notifications are up next so expect them real soon! I know how important they are to help direct people to active discussions and content, I regret not launching the site with them.
Notifications definitely are important and I am behind this 100%....but can we please not have achievements?
It's probably too late to ask at this point, but honestly it detracts from being in a community. The only people who find the need for achievements are the same people who derive personal value from their XBOX Live gamerscore. I mean to be perfectly honest, they weren't even achievements in the full sense of the word. Hell, beating Gears of War 3 on hard actually has more merit to it then "create a deck with Deathwing in it".
I have to disagree with you though I applaud the courage to stand up for what you believe in.
Achievements encourage interaction on the website which helps bolster the community more than anything. I've personally witnessed what they can do for a website and the love our community members have for them which is why they were a top priority. I think it is important that we can showcase how active someone has been on a site in a way that isn't just post count, even if some of the achievements are silly.
Ultimately it is a system designed for fun and if it isn't something you're interested in, you aren't required to participate - much like how we don't force people to click on fan creations content on the homepage. I think people who loved achievements before will really like what we've done with them here.
Thanks Flux. I can understand that entirely, and to some degree I think achievements can be at least fun; I just get concerned that it becomes another form of gatekeeping (reddit karma, instagram follows, # of achievements). It sometimes comes to the point where I've seen people reject the opinions of others just because they dont have enough achievements, or because they just joined the site <X> days ago.
That's the only place my concern came into play. We'll see how it pans out here too.
We've got achievements done and they'll be coming out this week. Notifications are up next so expect them real soon! I know how important they are to help direct people to active discussions and content, I regret not launching the site with them.
Notifications definitely are important and I am behind this 100%....but can we please not have achievements?
It's probably too late to ask at this point, but honestly it detracts from being in a community. The only people who find the need for achievements are the same people who derive personal value from their XBOX Live gamerscore. I mean to be perfectly honest, they weren't even achievements in the full sense of the word. Hell, beating Gears of War 3 on hard actually has more merit to it then "create a deck with Deathwing in it".
The FTP grind with MtG is sooooo much easier than Hearthstone and much more rewarding. I have only played for a month and feel like I already have a fairly substantial collection and haven't spent a penny on the game.
It's really not as horribly slow and grindy as Hearthstone, so I would recommend keeping going with it - you get (usually) at least a pack a day (and more), so it feels like good progression - whereas with Hearthstone you can barely make a noticable addition - probably due to Hearthstone being so limited on cards, etc.
I know MTG feels generous, but in reality the number of cards you get compared to what you will need for a competitive deck is pitiful.
I tried MTG earlier this year, grinding for free for a while. It didn't take me long to realize I would never in a million years have a competitive collection until I dropped some cash -- the lack of a crafting system ensures that. I actually applaud their decision to prohibit the player from destroying his own cards, but trust me, as f2p you will never get enough wild cards to make all the rares you need for a truly good deck.
I finally did fork over some money -- about the same as I would spend on a Hearthstone expansion, just to be fair -- and things got better. I was able to make the decks I wanted, more or less, but I still quit eventually, due to my personal problems with the game itself.
So in summary, the "generosity" of MTG is an illusion; the game itself is not terrible, but I'm personally not a fan.
Agree to disagree? (Since the "generosity" of the game is pretty much based on personal subjectivity to each player individually)
For me, I find it to be much more gratifying and engaging than Hearrthstone - this is partly because the amount of choice you have in what you are given means that there are constantly new decks to explore and I rarely see the same deck multiple times in a row, which already trumps Hearthstone, just for that small mercy!
And not to mention, that though it may seem that there's a bigger mountain to climb in Magic from the outside, as your collection grows, that mountain gets ever smaller, but the amount of choice and variety, doesn't - this means that slowly but surely, Magic eges ever further forward ahead of Hearthstone in terms of gameplay and accessibility.
I always enjoy this statement. "agree to disagree". It's essentially laymen for "I don't like your opinion, and need to say as much, but I'm at least trying to be civil about it".
Generosity is actually NOT subjective though. If MTG:A requires ~4 times as many cards to create a competitive deck and you're getting ~2-3x as many packs as you would in hearthstone the exchange rate is still roughly equal between the two games.
I'm not saying either of you can't enjoy different games, but threads like these don't generally foster senses of kinship between different groups of card-gamers and instead seem to create more division between the two...
Accessibility is also not an adjective I would use to describe MTG:A. If anything that describes hearthstone moreso than it does MTG, simply because while hearthstone does have simplier interactions, it's an easier game to pickup and play and get to understand on a basic level than MTG:A ever would be.
So no, I have to vehemently disagree that MTG:A is not accessible, not by any imagined circumstantial use of the word.
Banning or nerfing to the rock-bottom is just a lazy, unimaginative, disrespectful solution to the players who spent time and money into the game.
Using words like this to describe developers is extremely hyperbolic, vitriolic, and debasing for the work the devs put into the game.
You honestly think that the developers are those adjectives?
Lazy: They've put in more work in this game, then you have probably put into one thing your entire life.
Unimaginative: Right. The developers who've come up with the cards, flavor text, interactions, and fun style of hearthstone are 'unimaginative'
Disprespectful: So you think the developers SOLE purpose with nerfs, is to piss you (and other players LIKE you) off? You honestly think that? "Dev #1: Hey fellow devs. Let's nerf this card. But let's do it JUST TO PISS people off. Dev#2:HAHA YEA THAT SOUNDS AWESOME!"
I believe everyone is welcome to give feedback, both positive and negative. But using language like you chose, is just pathetic. It's a hallmark language signal of a generation of newer gamers who are ...frankly speaking...entitled little shits.
If you want to give feedback, my suggestion is drop the cutesey sarcastic bit. Sarcasm doesn't get anyone anywhere, especially in written/internet communication. Leave sarcasm where it's best used, verbal communication. Where the nuances of sarcasm can come into play, and not be misconstrued at all by any interested parties. I'd also suggest whenever you want to write feedback, especially regarding a creative process; take a step back; think about how you would feel if YOU were the person who created the very thing you were criticizing; and then remember that there are people on the other end of your posts.
Developers are not some nameless shadowy figure who is this wispy embodiment of evil when things are bad, and this apparition of blessedness when things are fun. They are people. Who make both good and bad decisions sometimes.
There's an important quote that I hope you read and take away some meaning from regarding this topic:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
You can potentially get two drustvar horrors, each of which can cast their double spells twice. There are some spell combinations that can just autowin the game, like [token generator] + The Storm Bringer, and now you get two rolls for it, not to mention two rolls on the horror itself. If you can afford to pay 9 mana for a 5/5 then Swamp Queen + quest will probably win the game.
Dude, Hagatha the 7 mana 5/5 is too slow to play in any competitive shaman right now, including control ones. Make it cost +2 with the hero power and it's even worse
What deck is going to let you pass a 9 mana turn? Control warrior? They can just brawl your storm bringer board while you draw bombs
This is the equivalent of saying Tak Nozwhisker is broken with Academic Espionage. You can spend your entire turn getting insane value but it doesn't really matter when even the slowest of opponents is going to punish your for it
Beyond the murloc aggro decks. There's plenty of people playing Muckmorpher Shaman as well as ValueWock Shaman. Using personal *anecdotal* evidence of your own experiences does not lend any credence to your theory. And you're right, not many are using Taz+Espionage. Most are using Taz+Togwaggles Scheme because it's a far easier combo to pull off.
Using specific scenarios "mech warriors will just brawl your board" is such a pessimistic, and frankly uninspired comment: it makes me think that you have some personal vendetta against theorycrafting with new cards, or this hero power specifically.
But sure, a hero power based off of Brann Bronzebeard; probably one of the strongest neutral legendaries from LoE set (aside from Reno) and you seem to think that the hero power is going to suck. Mmmkay then. If you believe that, I've got a statue to sell you in Booty Bay.
I still lose to Draemus nearly every time. He's almost as bad as Haro Setting Sun. You cant deal with a deck that summons beasts for "free" (via overkill and other gimmicks) and has the Deathstalker Rexxar hero power for the enemy boss.
I know it's missing the new expansion (which will drop tomorrow) but I just played Stonehill Defender (on a new draft done today) and discovered Zilliax. (A boomsday card which by all accounts SHOULDN'T be in the arena rotation at all.)
While I think there is some concern, at least it's not the karazhan meta with every good mage deck making huge tempo swings with 3x Firelands Portal.
Mark my words, reborn is going to be good for priests. They will be the only class able to consistently capitalize on the reborn effect giving minions 1 health. They will be able to trade, and then heal up the reborn minion to gain more value out of the card. Priest is going to be a top pick I bet in constructed.
Honorable mention will go to heal druid and paladin. Druid probably wishes this card had 1 more health so it can trigger the +5 healing needed for Lucentbark, but still, something to worth noting.
Noone is blinded for hype. They are just tired of people saying "woops, it's vulnerable to silence or sap...guess it's a bad card! hurr durr!"
(i.e. You!)
For the record, GENERALLY SPEAKING...any card that gives a minion divine shield, people only play when a minion survives to pop the shield immediately. Meaning in terms of a SMART player, getting value out of this; even against Plague of Murlocs....You'll gain +4 attack and a body that survives with taunt.
Honestly my favorite card so far is Desert Obelisk. Reason is, even though it's got horrible stats, it's one of those cards that you can spend hours trying to build a deck around to make it work. It seems like it won't be the greatest value card, but definitely the most interesting one that will show up in potential Trolden video's in the future! :)
I know the plethora of "Another one gone" and "More rats jumping a ship" comments will be on here, but there's a very obvious reality here: The 3 original founders are getting old.
I don't know their specific ages, but they founded Silicon and Synapse back in '91 right after graduating UCLA. That would put them at somewhere around age 22 back then. It's been 28 years since then. That means they are probably in their 50's. They have seen their company grow to dizzying heights of success; and probably have been compensated for it immensely; in more ways then just financially too.
I know that people like to think the worst of blizzard, and it's always a popular to hate-train on them; but the fact of the matter is; companies change and so do people. Enjoy what they founded for us.
They gave us the classics: Starcraft, Warcraft, and Diablo. We've enjoyed almost 3 decades of games from Blizzard's founders. It's time to let them retire, move on and enjoy what he said he plans on enjoying; music, the outdoors; and life.
Chimera, imagine if Tainted Zealot was still in the meta though. Then it *would* work (6, then 3 in that instance). That would be amazing...
I just completed another bomb warrior run in 33 minutes. I'd say to anyone looking to win this rather easily; pick warrior; choose "Bombs Away" "Armored Up" or "Iron and Steel" buckets whenever you see them in that priority. E
Spellpower totem, or Good ole' Bloodmage Thalnos should do the trick there.
Thanks Flux. I can understand that entirely, and to some degree I think achievements can be at least fun; I just get concerned that it becomes another form of gatekeeping (reddit karma, instagram follows, # of achievements). It sometimes comes to the point where I've seen people reject the opinions of others just because they dont have enough achievements, or because they just joined the site <X> days ago.
That's the only place my concern came into play. We'll see how it pans out here too.
Completed it with Shaman both times. First time was heal/elemental shaman. Second was with battlecry/shudderwock/elemental shaman.
Notifications definitely are important and I am behind this 100%....but can we please not have achievements?
It's probably too late to ask at this point, but honestly it detracts from being in a community. The only people who find the need for achievements are the same people who derive personal value from their XBOX Live gamerscore. I mean to be perfectly honest, they weren't even achievements in the full sense of the word. Hell, beating Gears of War 3 on hard actually has more merit to it then "create a deck with Deathwing in it".
Corrupted Blood
Spell-based Non-collectible Card
I always enjoy this statement. "agree to disagree". It's essentially laymen for "I don't like your opinion, and need to say as much, but I'm at least trying to be civil about it".
Generosity is actually NOT subjective though. If MTG:A requires ~4 times as many cards to create a competitive deck and you're getting ~2-3x as many packs as you would in hearthstone the exchange rate is still roughly equal between the two games.
I'm not saying either of you can't enjoy different games, but threads like these don't generally foster senses of kinship between different groups of card-gamers and instead seem to create more division between the two...
Accessibility is also not an adjective I would use to describe MTG:A. If anything that describes hearthstone moreso than it does MTG, simply because while hearthstone does have simplier interactions, it's an easier game to pickup and play and get to understand on a basic level than MTG:A ever would be.
So no, I have to vehemently disagree that MTG:A is not accessible, not by any imagined circumstantial use of the word.
Mekgineer Thermaplugg
Goblins and Gnomes legendary.
Using words like this to describe developers is extremely hyperbolic, vitriolic, and debasing for the work the devs put into the game.
You honestly think that the developers are those adjectives?
Lazy: They've put in more work in this game, then you have probably put into one thing your entire life.
Unimaginative: Right. The developers who've come up with the cards, flavor text, interactions, and fun style of hearthstone are 'unimaginative'
Disprespectful: So you think the developers SOLE purpose with nerfs, is to piss you (and other players LIKE you) off? You honestly think that? "Dev #1: Hey fellow devs. Let's nerf this card. But let's do it JUST TO PISS people off. Dev#2:HAHA YEA THAT SOUNDS AWESOME!"
I believe everyone is welcome to give feedback, both positive and negative. But using language like you chose, is just pathetic. It's a hallmark language signal of a generation of newer gamers who are ...frankly speaking...entitled little shits.
If you want to give feedback, my suggestion is drop the cutesey sarcastic bit. Sarcasm doesn't get anyone anywhere, especially in written/internet communication. Leave sarcasm where it's best used, verbal communication. Where the nuances of sarcasm can come into play, and not be misconstrued at all by any interested parties. I'd also suggest whenever you want to write feedback, especially regarding a creative process; take a step back; think about how you would feel if YOU were the person who created the very thing you were criticizing; and then remember that there are people on the other end of your posts.
Developers are not some nameless shadowy figure who is this wispy embodiment of evil when things are bad, and this apparition of blessedness when things are fun. They are people. Who make both good and bad decisions sometimes.
There's an important quote that I hope you read and take away some meaning from regarding this topic:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
Beyond the murloc aggro decks. There's plenty of people playing Muckmorpher Shaman as well as ValueWock Shaman. Using personal *anecdotal* evidence of your own experiences does not lend any credence to your theory. And you're right, not many are using Taz+Espionage. Most are using Taz+Togwaggles Scheme because it's a far easier combo to pull off.
Using specific scenarios "mech warriors will just brawl your board" is such a pessimistic, and frankly uninspired comment: it makes me think that you have some personal vendetta against theorycrafting with new cards, or this hero power specifically.
But sure, a hero power based off of Brann Bronzebeard; probably one of the strongest neutral legendaries from LoE set (aside from Reno) and you seem to think that the hero power is going to suck. Mmmkay then. If you believe that, I've got a statue to sell you in Booty Bay.
I still lose to Draemus nearly every time. He's almost as bad as Haro Setting Sun. You cant deal with a deck that summons beasts for "free" (via overkill and other gimmicks) and has the Deathstalker Rexxar hero power for the enemy boss.