|
|
|
The only card that scares me more than Master of Evo is that Mage 6 mana 5/5 and the hunter legendary
|
Infest is as unplayable as Soul of the Forest.
Soul of the Forest sees play in Aggro Druids. Hunters also have Unleash the Hounds for combo potential. Hard for me to take a rating seriously when there are legitimate oversights in its justification.
Please Blizzard, stop trying to make value/control/combo Hunters work.
What else is there, make more cards for the aggressive Hunter decks that already exist? With all due respect, speak for yourselves on this one.
This card is so insanely bad it hurts to look at it, there is no way this card will ever see play.
I feel like someone got lazy right around here. If there happens to be a Fatigue Warrior build that actually runs Tentacles for Arms, I'm going to remember this and laugh. Even if it doesn't, I would expect a comment like this to get spammed by a pundit on the Battle.net forums, not someone posting a formal article on LiquidHearth. What the hell.
|
On April 19 2016 04:58 NewSunshine wrote:Soul of the Forest sees play in Aggro Druids. Hunters also have Unleash the Hounds for combo potential. Hard for me to take a rating seriously when there are legitimate oversights in its justification. What else is there, make more cards for the aggressive Hunter decks that already exist? With all due respect, speak for yourselves on this one. Show nested quote +This card is so insanely bad it hurts to look at it, there is no way this card will ever see play. I feel like someone got lazy right around here. If there happens to be a Fatigue Warrior build that actually runs Tentacles for Arms, I'm going to remember this and laugh. Even if it doesn't, I would expect a comment like this to get spammed by a pundit on the Battle.net forums, not someone posting a formal article on LiquidHearth. What the hell.
I think in the context of preview season it's fine to take an aggressive/polar stance on cards. There will always be cases where a card could be good but to cautiously give everything a middling grade isn't super helpful.
Besides, aren't surprises the most fun anyways?
|
On April 19 2016 05:21 Hayl_Storm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 04:58 NewSunshine wrote:Infest is as unplayable as Soul of the Forest. Soul of the Forest sees play in Aggro Druids. Hunters also have Unleash the Hounds for combo potential. Hard for me to take a rating seriously when there are legitimate oversights in its justification. Please Blizzard, stop trying to make value/control/combo Hunters work. What else is there, make more cards for the aggressive Hunter decks that already exist? With all due respect, speak for yourselves on this one. This card is so insanely bad it hurts to look at it, there is no way this card will ever see play. I feel like someone got lazy right around here. If there happens to be a Fatigue Warrior build that actually runs Tentacles for Arms, I'm going to remember this and laugh. Even if it doesn't, I would expect a comment like this to get spammed by a pundit on the Battle.net forums, not someone posting a formal article on LiquidHearth. What the hell. I think in the context of preview season it's fine to take an aggressive/polar stance on cards. There will always be cases where a card could be good but to cautiously give everything a middling grade isn't super helpful. Besides, aren't surprises the most fun anyways?
I think the point is that the Infest comment wasn't so much aggressive/polar as it was thoughtless and juvenile. It's one thing to call a card bad and explain it's bad because despite all of Blizzard's efforts Control Hunter still isn't a thing. It's another to petulantly imply Blizzard is dumb for even trying and should therefore stop trying.
For my part if I wanted over the top reactions to cards I'd just go to reddit or various Twitch streams. While I disagreed heavily with card reviews for previous expansions, they were at least thoughtful.
It honestly feels like the LiquidHearth is burnt out and/or doesn't really want to bother reviewing the cards so they're just getting it done/written up so they can get on with other stuff.
|
On April 19 2016 05:21 Hayl_Storm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 04:58 NewSunshine wrote:Infest is as unplayable as Soul of the Forest. Soul of the Forest sees play in Aggro Druids. Hunters also have Unleash the Hounds for combo potential. Hard for me to take a rating seriously when there are legitimate oversights in its justification. Please Blizzard, stop trying to make value/control/combo Hunters work. What else is there, make more cards for the aggressive Hunter decks that already exist? With all due respect, speak for yourselves on this one. This card is so insanely bad it hurts to look at it, there is no way this card will ever see play. I feel like someone got lazy right around here. If there happens to be a Fatigue Warrior build that actually runs Tentacles for Arms, I'm going to remember this and laugh. Even if it doesn't, I would expect a comment like this to get spammed by a pundit on the Battle.net forums, not someone posting a formal article on LiquidHearth. What the hell. I think in the context of preview season it's fine to take an aggressive/polar stance on cards. There will always be cases where a card could be good but to cautiously give everything a middling grade isn't super helpful. Besides, aren't surprises the most fun anyways?
I think it doesn't make much difference, the cards will see whatever level of play they truly deserve, but if you're writing an article about these cards, and expect it to have some level of credence lent to it, I expect a more reasonable point of view. I'm gonna say look at Brian Kibler as an example, he's a great card game player, unquestionably, but when he sees a new card he looks for what's cool about it, or what can be done to make it a good card, he has an open mind to this kind of thing. I see the exact opposite here, I see people talking about how half the cards in a set are unplayable, and how some even hurt to look at. That is not at all the attitude I expect from a formal review of cards nobody's had the chance to play with yet. I expect better.
|
On April 19 2016 05:46 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 05:21 Hayl_Storm wrote:On April 19 2016 04:58 NewSunshine wrote:Infest is as unplayable as Soul of the Forest. Soul of the Forest sees play in Aggro Druids. Hunters also have Unleash the Hounds for combo potential. Hard for me to take a rating seriously when there are legitimate oversights in its justification. Please Blizzard, stop trying to make value/control/combo Hunters work. What else is there, make more cards for the aggressive Hunter decks that already exist? With all due respect, speak for yourselves on this one. This card is so insanely bad it hurts to look at it, there is no way this card will ever see play. I feel like someone got lazy right around here. If there happens to be a Fatigue Warrior build that actually runs Tentacles for Arms, I'm going to remember this and laugh. Even if it doesn't, I would expect a comment like this to get spammed by a pundit on the Battle.net forums, not someone posting a formal article on LiquidHearth. What the hell. I think in the context of preview season it's fine to take an aggressive/polar stance on cards. There will always be cases where a card could be good but to cautiously give everything a middling grade isn't super helpful. Besides, aren't surprises the most fun anyways? I think it doesn't make much difference, the cards will see whatever level of play they truly deserve, but if you're writing an article about these cards, and expect it to have some level of credence lent to it, I expect a more reasonable point of view. I'm gonna say look at Brian Kibler as an example, he's a great card game player, unquestionably, but when he sees a new card he looks for what's cool about it, or what can be done to make it a good card, he has an open mind to this kind of thing. I see the exact opposite here, I see people talking about how half the cards in a set are unplayable, and how some even hurt to look at. That is not at all the attitude I expect from a formal review of cards nobody's had the chance to play with yet. I expect better.
Rhere's a difference in review style between "can this card work in a cool deck" versus "will this card be in a top ladder deck". Daisyx and crew are going for the second option whereas other's may lean towards the first.
I'm not trying to argue which is better but just saying that there's room for different approaches.
|
On April 19 2016 11:13 Hayl_Storm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 05:46 NewSunshine wrote:On April 19 2016 05:21 Hayl_Storm wrote:On April 19 2016 04:58 NewSunshine wrote:Infest is as unplayable as Soul of the Forest. Soul of the Forest sees play in Aggro Druids. Hunters also have Unleash the Hounds for combo potential. Hard for me to take a rating seriously when there are legitimate oversights in its justification. Please Blizzard, stop trying to make value/control/combo Hunters work. What else is there, make more cards for the aggressive Hunter decks that already exist? With all due respect, speak for yourselves on this one. This card is so insanely bad it hurts to look at it, there is no way this card will ever see play. I feel like someone got lazy right around here. If there happens to be a Fatigue Warrior build that actually runs Tentacles for Arms, I'm going to remember this and laugh. Even if it doesn't, I would expect a comment like this to get spammed by a pundit on the Battle.net forums, not someone posting a formal article on LiquidHearth. What the hell. I think in the context of preview season it's fine to take an aggressive/polar stance on cards. There will always be cases where a card could be good but to cautiously give everything a middling grade isn't super helpful. Besides, aren't surprises the most fun anyways? I think it doesn't make much difference, the cards will see whatever level of play they truly deserve, but if you're writing an article about these cards, and expect it to have some level of credence lent to it, I expect a more reasonable point of view. I'm gonna say look at Brian Kibler as an example, he's a great card game player, unquestionably, but when he sees a new card he looks for what's cool about it, or what can be done to make it a good card, he has an open mind to this kind of thing. I see the exact opposite here, I see people talking about how half the cards in a set are unplayable, and how some even hurt to look at. That is not at all the attitude I expect from a formal review of cards nobody's had the chance to play with yet. I expect better. Rhere's a difference in review style between "can this card work in a cool deck" versus "will this card be in a top ladder deck". Daisyx and crew are going for the second option whereas other's may lean towards the first. I'm not trying to argue which is better but just saying that there's room for different approaches.
I recognize that, but one approach is also more open to having fun than the other, and push comes to shove, I play this game for fun. I get put off in general when people take the game too seriously, and get legitimately upset by a bad card. Similarly, One of my biggest pet peeves is when people go out of their way to talk trash about perfectly reasonable-looking cards. If you write reviews as a panel of multiple people, would it not make sense to have people who hold differing points of view, and offer a more balanced opinion as a group?
If you boil down my comments, I'm really just offering feedback, because there's change I would like to see in these card reviews. I'd hate to think I've vilified myself or someone else in the midst of this.
|
The ones i disagee with:
-----------------------------------
Shadow Word: Horror 4 -> 2
Xaril: 8 -> 3
Cult Apothecary: 5 -> 3
Ragnaros, Lightlord 4 -> at least 6+
Hammer of Twilight: 5 -> 8
Vilefin Inquisitor: 6 -> 2
-----------------------------------
Shadow Word: Horror 4 (2-). Useless card. I won't give it 1 just because it may work in some adventure/tavern. LoL at the art since it can't kill more then 2 murlocs at the same time due synergies.
Cult Apothecary 5 (3-) Bad even when played against a full board of minions for the motives this article already stated. It can buy 1 turn sometimes but most often it won't.
Xaril 8 (3-) May fit in some other rogue decks but not Miracle. Its important to keep up in tempo to maintain the board under control rather then getting poor value for cycle later. 8 is far off reality.
Ragnaros The light Lord: 4 (6+) Heals 8 and its a threat that needs to get rid off right away or it keeps healing. It has at least the same value as Earthen Ring Farseer and potential to beat all agro decks in the same way Reno Jackson does. It requires more support cards to work thou but its at least a playable card. It has good synergy alongside Reno Jackson as well.
Hammer of Twilight: 5 (8) Really, REALLY good. A lot better then Doomhammer because it can't be effective destroyed and it doesn't overload for a potencial T6 Fire Elemental.
Dream: T5 hammer -> Turn 6 Fire Elemental.
T6 = 6/5 minion + 4/2 minion + 7 targetable damage. Good luck coming back from this.
Vilefin Inquisitor: 6 (2). Really sucks but stats are solid. It gives tokens a murloc tag and nothing else. Does not work with tokens generated by spells or minions. The last thing Murloc decks want to do is to hit the hero power button. I wonder if you guys ever though about this card at all...
The remaining card's rate looks ok i guess.
|
Kinda surprised about the Master of Evolution rating. I mean, hell, I'm not sure it'll ever even see play, and I still feel confident that the card in isolation is a 10/10. The only 4-mana minions in the game that come close to it are Piloted Shredder, Keeper of the Grove, and Tomb Pillager. Are those three only 7/10?
|
On April 19 2016 13:38 Acritter wrote:
Kinda surprised about the Master of Evolution rating.
I agree it has a strong effect, but is it really better then Houndmaster?
It has a lot of potential value but shaman has difficulties to develop a board, i think it should be given an 8, maybe 9, but hardly 10.
|
On April 19 2016 11:52 NewSunshine wrote:
I recognize that, but one approach is also more open to having fun than the other, and push comes to shove, I play this game for fun. I get put off in general when people take the game too seriously, and get legitimately upset by a bad card. Similarly, One of my biggest pet peeves is when people go out of their way to talk trash about perfectly reasonable-looking cards. If you write reviews as a panel of multiple people, would it not make sense to have people who hold differing points of view, and offer a more balanced opinion as a group?
If you boil down my comments, I'm really just offering feedback, because there's change I would like to see in these card reviews. I'd hate to think I've vilified myself or someone else in the midst of this. But you did.
I hate - and i want to emphasize this - I REALLY HATE reading stupid comments from optimistic people about cards that has no way to work because they want to daydream about some miraculous scenario that can work once in a life time.
That's nothing wrong to do that in a discussion thread, but If a reviewer would do the same, i consider him to be an AMATEUR and all his articles would instantly lose credibility.
If you want to hype about new cards, i strongly suggest to watch streamers like Amaz, since his reviews are all about fucking hype joke and usually terrible from a competitive angle.
Last but not least, even when reviewers are wrong, they will accurately predict bad cards very often(that's not the same as spotting good ones)
On April 19 2016 11:13 Hayl_Storm wrote:
Rhere's a difference in review style between "can this card work in a cool deck" versus "will this card be in a top ladder deck". Daisyx and crew are going for the second option whereas other's may lean towards the first.
I'm not trying to argue which is better but just saying that there's room for different approaches.
Yes, please continue to do that.
|
On April 19 2016 18:39 Hellonslaught wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 11:52 NewSunshine wrote:
I recognize that, but one approach is also more open to having fun than the other, and push comes to shove, I play this game for fun. I get put off in general when people take the game too seriously, and get legitimately upset by a bad card. Similarly, One of my biggest pet peeves is when people go out of their way to talk trash about perfectly reasonable-looking cards. If you write reviews as a panel of multiple people, would it not make sense to have people who hold differing points of view, and offer a more balanced opinion as a group?
If you boil down my comments, I'm really just offering feedback, because there's change I would like to see in these card reviews. I'd hate to think I've vilified myself or someone else in the midst of this. But you did. I hate - and i want to emphasize this - I REALLY HATE reading stupid comments from optimistic people about cards that has no way to work because they want to daydream about some miraculous scenario that can work once in a life time. That's nothing wrong to do that in a discussion thread, but If a reviewer would do the same, i consider him to be an AMATEUR and all his articles would instantly lose credibility. If you want to hype about new cards, i strongly suggest to watch streamers like Amaz, since his reviews are all about fucking hype joke and usually terrible from a competitive angle. Last but not least, even when reviewers are wrong, they will accurately predict bad cards very often(that's not the same as spotting good ones) Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 11:13 Hayl_Storm wrote:
Rhere's a difference in review style between "can this card work in a cool deck" versus "will this card be in a top ladder deck". Daisyx and crew are going for the second option whereas other's may lean towards the first.
I'm not trying to argue which is better but just saying that there's room for different approaches. Yes, please continue to do that.
My beef isn't that they're going for the latter option, but the manner in which they do it. "This card is awful and Blizzard is awful for making it" (paraphrase) isn't so much analysis as it is punditry. I expect more out Team Liquid than that.
|
On April 19 2016 05:21 Hayl_Storm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 04:58 NewSunshine wrote:Infest is as unplayable as Soul of the Forest. Soul of the Forest sees play in Aggro Druids. Hunters also have Unleash the Hounds for combo potential. Hard for me to take a rating seriously when there are legitimate oversights in its justification. Please Blizzard, stop trying to make value/control/combo Hunters work. What else is there, make more cards for the aggressive Hunter decks that already exist? With all due respect, speak for yourselves on this one. This card is so insanely bad it hurts to look at it, there is no way this card will ever see play. I feel like someone got lazy right around here. If there happens to be a Fatigue Warrior build that actually runs Tentacles for Arms, I'm going to remember this and laugh. Even if it doesn't, I would expect a comment like this to get spammed by a pundit on the Battle.net forums, not someone posting a formal article on LiquidHearth. What the hell. I think in the context of preview season it's fine to take an aggressive/polar stance on cards. There will always be cases where a card could be good but to cautiously give everything a middling grade isn't super helpful. Besides, aren't surprises the most fun anyways?
Sometimes, I feel that the "aggressive stances" can be more or less summarized as "Does it fit into a current T1 deck? If it does it is good, otherwise it is total garbage that will never ever see play"
I do however agree that surprises are fun. See Grim Patron
|
Hey guys, using this post to respond to some of the aggregate points
1. I have yet to see a viable competitive deck run Soul of the Forest and while I agree that Unleash has combo potential with Infest, at the end of the day the value just isn't worth it because the beasts you get are just such terrible quality that you lose way to much tempo for mediocre value
2. I think that making cards that are nowhere close to being viable isn't good game design, though obv everything I say here is either my opinion or that of the panelists
3. I agree it might be a bit lazy, but honestly there is not much to say about a card that is so obviously unplayable.
4. I am reviewing these cards because I enjoy doing it, so dw, I am not burned out, there is just very little to say about cards that are so obviously unplayable besides those comments, sorry
5. The thing is, while I am all for ''fun'' implications (I will certainly put most new cards into a deck at some point and fuck around with it just for the sake of having fun) that is not what we are here for: fun is incredibly subjective and what I think is a fun card (I am a really big fan of taunts and tempo mage for some reason) is very far from what other people enjoy, therefore we try to have a review that is atleast somewhat objective based on which decks are good at the high-end of the competitive meta.
6. The reason master of evolution is a bit iffy is that it suffers from the need of having to have a card live for 1+ turn, which will be hard because of the deathrattles that are being removed from shaman. We rated cards like this very highly in TGT and ended up getting burned because of the fact that it is just really hard for shamans to establish proper board control.
7. I think we go very much out of our way to accomodate cards being played in t2/3/4 decks atm, for example we refer to mill rogue, aggro paladin, murloc (non-combo) paladin, tempo rogue and aggro warrior, all decks that are nowhere near to being t1 atm.
8. I agree with you on shadow word being quite useless most likely, the only reason we rated it that highly is because it keeps zoo in check really well the other parts I disagree with, as stated in the review. Ragnaros while being cool is really weak to just tagging it for 1 health (or him hitting himself during his turn) making it a 50/50 chance to just heal himself and be useless. Also Tirion is better in almost every scenario. I think shaman often suffers from taking too much face damage, though I agree the optimal combo with fire ele is pretty good, though thats mostly due to fire elemental being a pretty broken card. I disagree with you on vilefin, one of the reasons that non-warlock murloc decks are bad is because you often run out of value once you have control of the board (if you ever get it) so giving your hero power a small upgrade would 100% see play in a murloc paladin deck. Though I agree that most likely this kind of deck will not be playable
|
I'm gonna go ahead and agree with NewSunshine here. Some of the cards (especially Tentacles for Arms and Tentacle of N'zoth) were glossed over. They were called bad with little or no analysis/support, making the review feel unprofessional. I expect better from a Team Liquid forum. I'll give my shot at those two cards:
Tentacles for Arms-
This card is so slow that it is unlikely to see much play. However, Control and Fatigue Warrior might have the time needed to get value out of this card. In the ultra late game this card will allow you beat out other control decks by have a constant source of face damage. With Tentacles for Arms and the upgraded Warrior hero power you can create a 6 health differential each turn in the late game, allowing you to close out otherwise close games. Tentacles for Arms also provides a constant activator for execute. It will likely see only niche play since it competes with Gorehowl as a many-use weapon.
Tentacle of N'zoth-
This card is low impact due to being a 1 health 1 drop. It can be situationally good in the early game though. Against aggressive/token based decks, your opponent will have to stop to kill or silence it before playing more minions (similar to doomsayer). Also with the rotation of Death's Bite, Patron Warrior may use this card as an additional whirldwind effect. The card also has a similar effect as spell damage when used with symmetrical board clears like Hellfire and Elemental Destruction (but for 1 mana cheaper than Thalnos).
|
On April 19 2016 13:45 Hellonslaught wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 13:38 Acritter wrote:
Kinda surprised about the Master of Evolution rating. I agree it has a strong effect, but is it really better then Houndmaster? It has a lot of potential value but shaman has difficulties to develop a board, i think it should be given an 8, maybe 9, but hardly 10.
Okay, so Houndmaster is 6/5 of stats. With Haunted Creeper gone, I don't think the Taunt is all that important. Simple enough. Let's start calculating for Evo.
First scenario: you upgrade an average, uninteresting minion. It will, on average, go up by 2 stat points. That makes it 6/5 in stats.
Second scenario: you upgrade a damaged minion. It will, on average, go up by more than 2 stat points. You have greater than 6/5 in stats.
Third scenario: you upgrade a Battlecry minion like Novice Engineer. It goes up, once again, by more than 2 stat points. Still at more than 6/5 on stats.
What else is relevant? Well, for one, Master of Evolution is a perfectly good play on its own, reminiscent of Goblin Blastmage. Houndmaster is a terrible play on its own. Master of Evolution targets anything at all. Houndmaster can only target Beasts, which is a really weak effect in general and is even worse on curve. Can Shaman stick a board? We don't know, but aren't we supposed to be rating cards in isolation? Really, the only problem with Master is its anti-synergy with Overload cards, and the only good Overload minion is Totem Golem anyway.
On April 20 2016 00:42 Daisyx wrote:
6. The reason master of evolution is a bit iffy is that it suffers from the need of having to have a card live for 1+ turn, which will be hard because of the deathrattles that are being removed from shaman. We rated cards like this very highly in TGT and ended up getting burned because of the fact that it is just really hard for shamans to establish proper board control.
I can only assume you're talking about Thunder Bluff Valiant and Thunder Bluff Valiant exclusively? That's reasonable, but why do you think Shaman has so much trouble sticking a board now and had so little trouble back in pre-GvG? I'll give my answer: it's entirely because Naxx and GvG turned up the power and stickiness of early boards so much that Shaman couldn't muster the tools to answer any of it any longer. Lightning Storm stopped being a reasonable response, and Feral Spirit stopped being a board-choking opposition. Right now, all of those cards are going to be leaving Standard. Why do you expect the exact same restrictions as applied by those cards to limit Shaman after the change? Do we have good reason to expect a Harvest Golem opener to be too slow now?
|
On April 20 2016 00:42 Daisyx wrote:
3. I agree it might be a bit lazy, but honestly there is not much to say about a card that is so obviously unplayable.
Well why not say something like you did for 1:
On April 20 2016 00:42 Daisyx wrote:
1. I have yet to see a viable competitive deck run Soul of the Forest and while I agree that Unleash has combo potential with Infest, at the end of the day the value just isn't worth it because the beasts you get are just such terrible quality that you lose way to much tempo for mediocre value
I'm not really disagreeing with the ratings here, I'm not really focusing on that, what bothered me is what you did or didn't say about the cards. Instead of talking about how you don't want Blizzard making value cards for Hunter, which I disagree with wholeheartedly, why not just say something like this? When you say nothing along those lines, I see you dismiss a card without even considering the possibility that has the best chance of making the card good. At that point I start to wonder why I'm reading. I lend your reviews more credence when you dismiss a card, but you explain why it won't see play, despite possible combos and scenarios. My problem is that didn't happen here. I agree that a competitive perspective is good, but when you tacitly dismiss a card as though its very existence is upsetting, that's not what I come here for.
|
On April 20 2016 00:51 RevenantSC2 wrote:
I'm gonna go ahead and agree with NewSunshine here. Some of the cards (especially Tentacles for Arms and Tentacle of N'zoth) were glossed over. They were called bad with little or no analysis/support, making the review feel unprofessional. I expect better from a Team Liquid forum. I'll give my shot at those two cards:
Tentacles for Arms-
This card is so slow that it is unlikely to see much play. However, Control and Fatigue Warrior might have the time needed to get value out of this card. In the ultra late game this card will allow you beat out other control decks by have a constant source of face damage. With Tentacles for Arms and the upgraded Warrior hero power you can create a 6 health differential each turn in the late game, allowing you to close out otherwise close games. Tentacles for Arms also provides a constant activator for execute. It will likely see only niche play since it competes with Gorehowl as a many-use weapon.
Tentacle of N'zoth-
This card is low impact due to being a 1 health 1 drop. It can be situationally good in the early game though. Against aggressive/token based decks, your opponent will have to stop to kill or silence it before playing more minions (similar to doomsayer). Also with the rotation of Death's Bite, Patron Warrior may use this card as an additional whirldwind effect. The card also has a similar effect as spell damage when used with symmetrical board clears like Hellfire and Elemental Destruction (but for 1 mana cheaper than Thalnos).
The thing with Tentacles is Ben Brode didn't even try to defend the card when people savaged it on Twitter. But he did say that it was tested at lower mana costs and turned out to be OP. So maybe there is a deck that can get value out of it at 5 mana where most other decks just can't. The effect would be great in Reno which can't stack weapons and likewise it can be used in Elise Starseeker decks to cheat out losing all your weapons. But I don't know how likely or viable that is.
Of course, the effect is quite unique for Warrior, which really should be enough to let it at least be experimented with.
BTW, I feel that Brood of N'Zoth is being overlooked too quickly for similar reasons. It's not a random effect like Dark Cultist or Anubisath Sentinel but a global effect. That's new and possible makes up for the downsides of deathrattle buffs (although the opponent still gets a chance to manipulate the results). I'm not saying the card is good, I'm just saying it's different enough to warrant a closer look.
|
On April 20 2016 00:42 Daisyx wrote:
7. I think we go very much out of our way to accomodate cards being played in t2/3/4 decks atm, for example we refer to mill rogue, aggro paladin, murloc (non-combo) paladin, tempo rogue and aggro warrior, all decks that are nowhere near to being t1 atm.
I do not agree here. The general feeling I am getting from the liquidhearth reviews (at large, not by the judgement of individual cards) is that unless a card can fit into an existing T1 archetype it is automatically a bad card.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](/staff/Hayl_Storm/assorted_banners/CthunBanner.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/images/social/twitter.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/twitchbutton.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/markofyshaarj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/mirekeeper.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/infest.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/callofthewild.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/cabalisttome.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/stewardofdarkness.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/ragnaros.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/vilefininqui.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/shadowwordhorror.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/undercityuckster.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/xaril.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wYYOw4Z.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/thingfrombelow.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/hammeroftwilight.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/hallazeal.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/masterofevolution.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/renouncedarkness.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/nzothfirstmate.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/tentaclesforarms.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/ravagingghoul.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/bloodwarriors.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/tentacle.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/spawnofnzoth.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.liquidhearth.com/staff/Hayl_Storm/HS_Cards/Whispers/cultapothecary.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lWQAJLe.png)
