Learn more about Whispers of the Old Gods
Want to learn more about Whispers of the Old Gods ? Head on over to our Whispers of the Old Gods guide!
Discuss this Card on the Forums
Join the discussion on our forums! Come discuss Servant of Yogg-Saron over in our dedicated Servant of Yogg-Saron discussion topic.
using your rules, isn't it obvious then that battlecries come from the cards that play them? Why would the player be involved in the battlecry of a minion other than targeting? The targeting reticle always comes from the minion to the cursor. In what case does a battlecry come from the hero? Blood Knight does not give the hero +3/+3. Elven Archer does not fire an arrow from the hero. Jeweled Scarab has a glow on itself when it gives you cards to discover.
Its really not as complicated as you're making it. A lot of people including myself assumed wrongly that casting a spell was something only a hero could do, but its been clarified that this is not the case and the logic holds up. Minions with effects are the source of those effects. Deathrattles, battlecries, divine shield, stealth, taunt, whatever, ALL come from the minion. The only minion that doesn't do this is SI:7 Agent, which isn't a battlecry, but rather a combo, which are about the only minion effect whose source comes from the hero.
All right. Good points, and I get what you're saying. (I could make some arguments about weapons with battlecries or ones that manipulate aspects of the game such as mana crystals, but I wouldn't actually agree with them and it would just be me trying to be difficult. ;) )
I guess my point is that, previous to now, the origin of a battlecry didn't really make much difference in terms of gameplay (what does it matter if Elven Archer shoots damage from itself or from the hero's face? It's still a point of damage). With Yogg, it really feels like the first time that the origin (subject of the sentence after the "Battlecry") of an effect seems to actually make any difference.
Honestly, now that I think about it, what Yogg really made me realize is that technically all battlecries actually have the wrong verb tense (as the subject of every sentence after the battlecry keyword is technically "This minion..." So, to go back to our standard example of Elven Archer, because the effect originates from the archer it should actually be "deals" in the verb rather than "deal."
In the long run, yes, I suppose it doesn't truly matter. I've understood the card effects for everything up until now and hadn't noticed the verb tense as an issue previously.
And, clearly, I'm not going to stop playing Hearthstone anytime soon over an issue of grammar.
Still, it will probably always bug me now. Ah, well...
Why can't they get the grammar right on this kind of effect? Yogg-Saron has the same problem.
Explanation:
-Command (imperative) form on the verb, so it's an implied (you) for the subject. But it doesn't work as if it were "you" but "Servant of Yogg-Saron" doing the casting.
-Subject / verb agreement is wrong here given the clarification of the effect from Team 5. If the subject of the sentence is "you" then it's fine (You cast). However, if it's Servant who is doing the casting, then the verb should be "casts." (Servant of Yogg-Saron casts...)
Solution is so easy, too:
"Servant of Yogg-Saron casts a random spell..."
Or, if that won't fit in the space:
"This minion casts..."
This annoys me more than it being a bad/fun card.
It doesn't matter who or what is doing the Battlecry, it simply just happens. Look at Elven Archer So, saying "This minion deals 1 damage" is effectively the same as "You deal 1 damage". Its clear, its concise. You're worrying about nothing, and honestly strict grammatical rules really have no place in modern language.
Because in this case the Battlecry will have a different effect depending the origin of the spell, the Battlecry keyword is insufficient. Adding "This minion" is then not redundant, but clarifying.
one spell won't do much most of the times, compared to what a sh*t ton can do
the biggest problem here is that you are paying 2 health in stats for something that won't do you much in 95% of times.
Pfff... If it was "Discover: Cast a random spell that cost 5 or less (targets chose randomly)". It could have potential, you can chose one which can't be negative to you, or go deep choosing fireball for exemple. It could be fun and with a little more skill! Imagine you choose fireball and both of you have 6hp, is cooler to know you can kill yourself or win the game than just suicide.
Sorry for my english, I hope you understood me
So bad like yogg-saron
the difference in this cards is that you play this for tempo and yogg-saron to win you the game (or lose), with this card being really bad for thempo with its stats, while yogg-saron can do what you want it to do if you play spells to improve its battlecry
servant is bad, but yogg-saron is good (if you use it with an objective)
Watch Trump's video, There he points why this card is above avarge and not shit like everyone says it is
Link:https://youtu.be/0k_eCkou0hs
people do play bombers, its basically that
I don't get "above average" from that...
Trump, the guy that said Dr. Boom was hot garbage when it was revealed?
Trump, The guy who got to reveal this card.
The card is like Mad Bombber, you are not suppose to use it when you are winning.
Will the spell count as a spells you have cast? Or does "Servant of Yogg-saron" cast it?
So that means no overload?
Yogg is really good I don't know why people say it is bad :l