I got my first legendary today and its a golden The Beast, I know that naxx patch will be a "deathrattle patch", making this card kinda more useless than it already is, so what u guys think? maybe i should DE right now or wait until naxx for a possible chance on this card?
If you are not really in a deep need for dust, then I would suggest not to DE it.. I have a golden Sylvanas Windrunner and haven't DE it till now despite the fact that I do not even run her in any deck and only have Ysera and The Beast as legendaries.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You can't harass members who play Face Hunter, nor are they compelled to make preemptive apologies or justifications for playing it. They don't hack or crack their opponents' game, they simply play existing cards that form a specific deck. If you suck at countering Face Hunter, you should blame the designers, not the community.
well so far as we know, the only card that is going to make the Beast strictly "worse" than it is now is Baron Rivendare, and I doubt that he's going to become a meta-defining card, at least for long. At first there will probably be an over-representation of Naxx cards in play, but as people have messed around with them, you won't find most of them any more than any other card. So once we get to that point, if you're willing to play the Beast now, I don't see any reason you shouldn't then for fear of one card.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear turns into a cat and eats you." - Anonymous Druid
I'm sticking to my beast for now as well. But I dunno... it's the kinda card that backfires too often. I stole a couple of games I had no business winning because I killed a beast and I've heard similar tales from others.
I guess that at some point you stop DEing the not so usefull legendaries. The more usefull ones you got the less incentive you have to DE the others. You have to figure it out if you've reached that already.
There are certain situation in which the card is decent but overall it's way too situational. With the abundance of Big Game Hunters in the current meta it will rarely provide any value. And even if it lives to tell the tale, it's just a worse giant (due to the deathrattle effect). Mountain & Molten Giants are strictly better in almost any deck.
Strictly speak, The Beast has an base stat spread of 9/7, removing value from it for a 3/3 creature, the net attack and defense of the creature is 6/4.
A 6 mana 6/4 is bad in terms of stats, but my personal qualm against The Beast is that it actually opens up options for your opponent. Cards like Sylvanas and Cairne force the state of the board into a potential negative for the opponent, where the opponent must find the correct counterplay for it and usually lack the leisure of using damage removal or sacking minions if unprepared. The Beast on the other hand, encourages the opponent to remove the card at your expense - they can sack creatures to a point where they are returned value because one of their creatures are effectively replaced by the resummoned 3/3. Playing The Beast over either of the two legendaries mentioned above will create a target for the opponent as most legendaries do but it's one that shifts the momentum in the favor of the opponent once dealt with and creates more options for favorable trades.
The situations where The Beast are useful is few and far between, the first I can think of would be in a mid-range Hunter deck as a game-ender with Tundra Rhino where it requires a two turn set-up for a 9 attack burst. In general situations, it's about as useful as an Ancient of War placed as a 10/5, where the goal of the game is to push for the win while the opponent is lacking counterplay. Of course, we never see this because the rare occasions a 10/5 Ancient of War is useful would be a situation where we are already winning and the opponent is most likely topdecking or locked down.
With that said, The Beast is an inefficient card in terms of mana-to-stats, acts as a "win more" card where another card would have won you the game more just as easily as well as in a safer fashion, is volatile to shifting the momentum into the opponent's favor, and offers the opponent more options to trade to return value.
Edit: Oh right, it's too soon to tell in terms of Naxx card reveals currently, nothing interesting too far. It has a negative deathrattle and most of Naxx was centered around manipulating deathrattles (which are usually positive). Unless they throw us a curveball, all the character specific card reveals have yet and will probably not support The Beast. I'm holding onto mine for any possible changes they make to it for #MAXVALUE disenchants.
I dont think its right to evaluate the beast by subtracting the 3/3. You could use the same logic with King Mukla and say "its just a 3 cost 3/3". Of course, the practical realities of play make Mukla nothing of the sort.
The best way to think about it is that, compared with Bolderfist Ogre you gain +3 right now at the risk of giving the enemy +3/+3. In terms of tempo, I think this trade-off is reasonable.
Naxx has revealed undertaker. Which means there is at least one card in Naxx that will work with him.
Still isn't any good when compared to Other game winning cards.
The Beast is bad because it's a win more with a serious downside. Leeroy Jenkins, Doomguard, Arcane Golem are finishers, but their downside is practically unnoticeable (generally because you win).
The Beast, when it's not winning you the game is turning the game for you opponent. They don't have to cast a 3/3 to just have it. You are rewarding your opponent for what they want to do: Kill your best card on board.
I remember the first time I saw this card I laughed. I was losing by a card or two and then I Big game it and gain a 2 card board advt in no time (due to P/T on board). He was better off not playing the card at all, hell, he prolly won if he didnt play the stupid thing.
The Beast wont get any better unless they change the downside from horrifying to just bad. As it stands, it's just barely in junk tier. I would hold on to it in case they do change it and you can DE it for more. Otherwise, it's just a junk rare you shouldn't play unless you HAVE TO.
Also, silencing it just to have it killed is not kewl. It's then losing you 2 net cards (unless you owl it, wasting the potential use on your opponent). Basically this card is bad because it can easily 2 for 1 you back right as you play it. You never want to play a card that 2-4-1s yourself.
Also, Dr_Smash, in this universe, The Beast is bad bad bad. There is a reason it's in the junk tier and will remain there without changes. If you have links to your discussion on this card, I would be glad to partake, but there really is nothing to talk about when it comes to The Beast
The Beast is my first and only Legendary. I guess its only viable if silence it or at least combo with divine shield as Pally. Otherwise, you pay for +3 Attack compared to a Boulderfist Ogre at the high risk of giving your opponent a 3/3.
(Your opinion on the delicate The Beast that gets more and more vulnerable)
ATTACHMENTS
Baron Rivendare
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You can't harass members who play Face Hunter, nor are they compelled to make preemptive apologies or justifications for playing it. They don't hack or crack their opponents' game, they simply play existing cards that form a specific deck. If you suck at countering Face Hunter, you should blame the designers, not the community.
I understand all the reasons that the beast is bad but look at the other give your opponent stat points card; King Mukula. He's been getting some play and in a way he gives a very flexible 2/2 to the opponent that that can effect board state immediately on their turn. The Beast even if it does get BGHed (which is everyone running?) the drawback doesn't effect the board immediately, it has to sit a turn. Sure the bananas need to be paid for and can slow down tempo but I think that the flexibility makes up for that.
I guess I'm saying that I don't think it's junk, it just may not have found a home yet. At worst it is a very powerful risky card.
I don't mind King Mukla in an aggro deck, but two huge issues when you get to more competitive ranks:
- Feeding cards to Miracle Rogue - Upgrading hand size of Handlock for Mountain Giants
Which account for more than half of the decks you'll be facing until any substantial changes. For all intents and purposes, King Mukla still is a net value of 3 for 3/3 in terms of raw stats, considering this method is a perfectly fine general gauge of value - many effects shift around the value of a card, but it's as good as it gets for a standard of comparison and luckily it's quite good. There's a reasoning to Murloc Tidehunter being a net 3/2 for 2 and Dragonling Mechanic being a net 4/5 for 4, it provides a method which let cards conform to some standards.
Yes, at worst The Beast is a very powerful yet risky card, but you have safer alternatives with more versatile impact. There is no "hidden" trick to making him viable in this meta unless you're expecting to be the first player among hundreds of thousands to discover some amazing new tech to push him into viability, if he was as predictably strong as he appears, he would be played much more than currently (which is not at all).
There's a reasoning to Murloc Tidehunter being a net 3/2 for 2 and Dragonling Mechanic being a net 4/5 for 4, it provides a method which let cards conform to some standards.
While I agree that it's useful to have a simplistic way of comparing the value of cards, I don't think it's really useful to simplify it to that extent. There's a reason that Chillwind Yeti sees lots of high level constructed play, but Dragonling Mechanic sees none, despite both being "4/5 for 4". Dragonling Mechanic is significantly worse than the Yeti, just like King Mukla is significantly better than a 3/3 for 3.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello guys
I got my first legendary today and its a golden The Beast, I know that naxx patch will be a "deathrattle patch", making this card kinda more useless than it already is, so what u guys think? maybe i should DE right now or wait until naxx for a possible chance on this card?
I'm stuck with The Beast as well. I don't DE my cards, so hopefully the meta will change enough to make it viable...
thanks guys
If you are not really in a deep need for dust, then I would suggest not to DE it.. I have a golden Sylvanas Windrunner and haven't DE it till now despite the fact that I do not even run her in any deck and only have Ysera and The Beast as legendaries.
You can't harass members who play Face Hunter, nor are they compelled to make preemptive apologies or justifications for playing it. They don't hack or crack their opponents' game, they simply play existing cards that form a specific deck. If you suck at countering Face Hunter, you should blame the designers, not the community.
well so far as we know, the only card that is going to make the Beast strictly "worse" than it is now is Baron Rivendare, and I doubt that he's going to become a meta-defining card, at least for long. At first there will probably be an over-representation of Naxx cards in play, but as people have messed around with them, you won't find most of them any more than any other card. So once we get to that point, if you're willing to play the Beast now, I don't see any reason you shouldn't then for fear of one card.
"Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear turns into a cat and eats you." - Anonymous Druid
I'm sticking to my beast for now as well. But I dunno... it's the kinda card that backfires too often. I stole a couple of games I had no business winning because I killed a beast and I've heard similar tales from others.
I guess that at some point you stop DEing the not so usefull legendaries. The more usefull ones you got the less incentive you have to DE the others. You have to figure it out if you've reached that already.
Signature !!!!
There are certain situation in which the card is decent but overall it's way too situational. With the abundance of Big Game Hunters in the current meta it will rarely provide any value. And even if it lives to tell the tale, it's just a worse giant (due to the deathrattle effect). Mountain & Molten Giants are strictly better in almost any deck.
I really think that Finkle Einhorn guy should be caster's side.
An eye for an eye, leads the whole world blind.
...making The Beast the single most powerful card in the game...sure, great idea mate.
6-cost to get a 9/7, easily gets shot by Big Game Hunter or Shadow Word: Death, ending up with 3/3, is just reasonable.
An eye for an eye, leads the whole world blind.
Strictly speak, The Beast has an base stat spread of 9/7, removing value from it for a 3/3 creature, the net attack and defense of the creature is 6/4.
A 6 mana 6/4 is bad in terms of stats, but my personal qualm against The Beast is that it actually opens up options for your opponent. Cards like Sylvanas and Cairne force the state of the board into a potential negative for the opponent, where the opponent must find the correct counterplay for it and usually lack the leisure of using damage removal or sacking minions if unprepared. The Beast on the other hand, encourages the opponent to remove the card at your expense - they can sack creatures to a point where they are returned value because one of their creatures are effectively replaced by the resummoned 3/3. Playing The Beast over either of the two legendaries mentioned above will create a target for the opponent as most legendaries do but it's one that shifts the momentum in the favor of the opponent once dealt with and creates more options for favorable trades.
The situations where The Beast are useful is few and far between, the first I can think of would be in a mid-range Hunter deck as a game-ender with Tundra Rhino where it requires a two turn set-up for a 9 attack burst. In general situations, it's about as useful as an Ancient of War placed as a 10/5, where the goal of the game is to push for the win while the opponent is lacking counterplay. Of course, we never see this because the rare occasions a 10/5 Ancient of War is useful would be a situation where we are already winning and the opponent is most likely topdecking or locked down.
With that said, The Beast is an inefficient card in terms of mana-to-stats, acts as a "win more" card where another card would have won you the game more just as easily as well as in a safer fashion, is volatile to shifting the momentum into the opponent's favor, and offers the opponent more options to trade to return value.
Edit: Oh right, it's too soon to tell in terms of Naxx card reveals currently, nothing interesting too far. It has a negative deathrattle and most of Naxx was centered around manipulating deathrattles (which are usually positive). Unless they throw us a curveball, all the character specific card reveals have yet and will probably not support The Beast. I'm holding onto mine for any possible changes they make to it for #MAXVALUE disenchants.
http://www.youtube.com/user/vtxaishi
You're not going crazy, I edit 2~3 times each post
By skin you mean the image or? It's a different picture if that's what you're asking...
What are you talking about... They are different pictures, its just that both are fire/lava themed...
Still isn't any good when compared to Other game winning cards.
The Beast is bad because it's a win more with a serious downside. Leeroy Jenkins, Doomguard, Arcane Golem are finishers, but their downside is practically unnoticeable (generally because you win).
The Beast, when it's not winning you the game is turning the game for you opponent. They don't have to cast a 3/3 to just have it. You are rewarding your opponent for what they want to do: Kill your best card on board.
I remember the first time I saw this card I laughed. I was losing by a card or two and then I Big game it and gain a 2 card board advt in no time (due to P/T on board). He was better off not playing the card at all, hell, he prolly won if he didnt play the stupid thing.
The Beast wont get any better unless they change the downside from horrifying to just bad. As it stands, it's just barely in junk tier. I would hold on to it in case they do change it and you can DE it for more. Otherwise, it's just a junk rare you shouldn't play unless you HAVE TO.
Also, silencing it just to have it killed is not kewl. It's then losing you 2 net cards (unless you owl it, wasting the potential use on your opponent). Basically this card is bad because it can easily 2 for 1 you back right as you play it. You never want to play a card that 2-4-1s yourself.
Also, Dr_Smash, in this universe, The Beast is bad bad bad. There is a reason it's in the junk tier and will remain there without changes. If you have links to your discussion on this card, I would be glad to partake, but there really is nothing to talk about when it comes to The Beast
The Beast is my first and only Legendary. I guess its only viable if silence it or at least combo with divine shield as Pally. Otherwise, you pay for +3 Attack compared to a Boulderfist Ogre at the high risk of giving your opponent a 3/3.
Play The Beast plus Baron Rivendare, your opponent Big Game Hunter / Shadow Word: Death it, and BAM! gets TWO Finkle Einhorn!.. How about that?! :D
(Your opinion on the delicate The Beast that gets more and more vulnerable)
You can't harass members who play Face Hunter, nor are they compelled to make preemptive apologies or justifications for playing it. They don't hack or crack their opponents' game, they simply play existing cards that form a specific deck. If you suck at countering Face Hunter, you should blame the designers, not the community.
Crap! Now I have to remove my MVP card from my decks :(
I understand all the reasons that the beast is bad but look at the other give your opponent stat points card; King Mukula. He's been getting some play and in a way he gives a very flexible 2/2 to the opponent that that can effect board state immediately on their turn. The Beast even if it does get BGHed (which is everyone running?) the drawback doesn't effect the board immediately, it has to sit a turn. Sure the bananas need to be paid for and can slow down tempo but I think that the flexibility makes up for that.
I guess I'm saying that I don't think it's junk, it just may not have found a home yet. At worst it is a very powerful risky card.
I don't mind King Mukla in an aggro deck, but two huge issues when you get to more competitive ranks:
- Feeding cards to Miracle Rogue
- Upgrading hand size of Handlock for Mountain Giants
Which account for more than half of the decks you'll be facing until any substantial changes. For all intents and purposes, King Mukla still is a net value of 3 for 3/3 in terms of raw stats, considering this method is a perfectly fine general gauge of value - many effects shift around the value of a card, but it's as good as it gets for a standard of comparison and luckily it's quite good. There's a reasoning to Murloc Tidehunter being a net 3/2 for 2 and Dragonling Mechanic being a net 4/5 for 4, it provides a method which let cards conform to some standards.
Yes, at worst The Beast is a very powerful yet risky card, but you have safer alternatives with more versatile impact. There is no "hidden" trick to making him viable in this meta unless you're expecting to be the first player among hundreds of thousands to discover some amazing new tech to push him into viability, if he was as predictably strong as he appears, he would be played much more than currently (which is not at all).
http://www.youtube.com/user/vtxaishi
You're not going crazy, I edit 2~3 times each post
While I agree that it's useful to have a simplistic way of comparing the value of cards, I don't think it's really useful to simplify it to that extent. There's a reason that Chillwind Yeti sees lots of high level constructed play, but Dragonling Mechanic sees none, despite both being "4/5 for 4". Dragonling Mechanic is significantly worse than the Yeti, just like King Mukla is significantly better than a 3/3 for 3.