Hunter's aren't THAT bad. Paladin has the best ones by far. In un'goro, literally every paladin deck ran at least 3 PALADIN legendaries, which pissed a lot of people off, myself especially. Fortunately, they ONLY gave them 2 more in KnC lol. Shaman arguably has the worst DK in my opinion. I'm pretty surprised that it saw play even in evolve shaman. The battlecry is good, but arguably worse than Bloodlust. The only situation where it's better than bloodlust is when you combo him on like turns 8-10 with stuff like Doppelgangster, but the actual hero power you get is garbage. Id argue that it's a worse version of Dinomancy because there's a lot of battlecry cards in the game so you can low-roll about like 30-40% on average, plus on average, minions gain +1 +1 when they increase in mana. With dinomancy, you always get +2 +2 and it's on a class with a bad control hero power. And dinomancy is a terrible card that sees absolutely no play in any hunter deck. The shaman totem generating hero power is actually a lot better than people think. The totems are very annoying to clear and are one of the reasons why you play Evolve in the first place.
Ya but dk jaina, and uncle Tony, are close to the top cards in the game and the mage quest, pyros, and aluneth are good. Hunter and shaman are all generally much worse
Just to clarify, Tony and Waygate are still played quite a bit, but their decks have trash-tier winrates. DK and weapon are the only powerhouses, with Tony cycling in and out.
I would still vote for Hunter, as some of the Wild legendaries are so laughable, KK never saw play, and even the DK completely changes the playstyle, so his usefulness is debatable.
While the win rate of Quest Mage is low, the quest is still way better than unplayable trash like Anomalus.
So hunter is indeed the class with the worst legendaries but no by far. Also, some would argue King Krush is actually good so hunter may be on par with priest, shaman, warlock and warrior here
No, I didn't. I don't think Rin is as good as players think it is. Based on this, again, I should've not included Al'Akir or Ixlid in my list because they're also not legendaries that require building a deck around them. Rin is also the legendary filler case, I mean situationally good
shaman has only ONE legendary that currently sees any play - thrall - and even it's kind of dubious in its deck. white eyes does see some play in wild w/ reincarnate shaman, and it's a good card in that deck, but the rest of the shaman legendaries are basically unplayable. moorabi and runespear are two of the worst class legendaries ever printed.
hunter has rexxar, kathrena, king krush, and rhokdelar all seeing at least a bit of play, and they're all pretty strong cards in the decks that utilize them.
warrior's recent legendaries have been sort of decent but largely unplayable because of the state of the class. it's sort of frustrating rotface and geomancer have such similar mana costs and effects, and really have little synergy with each other.
i don't know why people are hating on rin, it's a card that single-handedly wins control matchups.
It's not even a contest. Hunter wins this all day every day and the margin between hunter and the next class with the worst is staggering. They really made Hunter pay for Undertaker didn't they?
Yes, Shaman is in a bad spot now, and their legendaries have never really been the best, but many of their legendaries at least are not completely worthless by design and have some potential, unlike most of those that Hunter ever got. Deathstalker was the first one ever that was so much as considerable, and Kathrena is the first proper combo-card/build-around that Hunter ever received.
No. Warrior wins against every aggro deck. The ishue is that warrior cards are one or the other, or too expansive and value making, so against aggro you don't even play it, or too early and cheap removal that do nothing against value based decks. If decks had 60 instead of 30 cards warrior would be the best class by far. Even Warlock's hero power would be bad towards acolyte+comand
I don't get why everyone claims that Inkmaster is a bad card. It's an incredible card. Perhaps there's not a good deck for it right now (I would argue that there is in wild right now though), but it's an amazing card still. It reminds me of how everyone bashed Prince Keleseth upon release and then it became broken when the proper deck came into power. Inkmaster is amazing with Kazakus 10 mana potions on T7 or a Flamestrike tempo reset. I see no reason to not auto-include it in almost any Reno deck and even more so now with the big spells support given to mage in the last expansion.
So hunter is indeed the class with the worst legendaries but no by far. Also, some would argue King Krush is actually good so hunter may be on par with priest, shaman, warlock and warrior here
The problem is Hunter legendaries do little for Hunter decks. The Hunter usually can't utilize them to their fullest without weakening they deck. And when the legendary does not wreck your deck, it doesn't reliably do anything to help the Hunter win.
I would say Hunter except they have the best legendary in existence, Gahz'rilla
Hunter's aren't THAT bad. Paladin has the best ones by far. In un'goro, literally every paladin deck ran at least 3 PALADIN legendaries, which pissed a lot of people off, myself especially. Fortunately, they ONLY gave them 2 more in KnC lol. Shaman arguably has the worst DK in my opinion. I'm pretty surprised that it saw play even in evolve shaman. The battlecry is good, but arguably worse than Bloodlust. The only situation where it's better than bloodlust is when you combo him on like turns 8-10 with stuff like Doppelgangster, but the actual hero power you get is garbage. Id argue that it's a worse version of Dinomancy because there's a lot of battlecry cards in the game so you can low-roll about like 30-40% on average, plus on average, minions gain +1 +1 when they increase in mana. With dinomancy, you always get +2 +2 and it's on a class with a bad control hero power. And dinomancy is a terrible card that sees absolutely no play in any hunter deck. The shaman totem generating hero power is actually a lot better than people think. The totems are very annoying to clear and are one of the reasons why you play Evolve in the first place.
No, I didn't. I don't think Rin is as good as players think it is. Based on this, again, I should've not included Al'Akir or Ixlid in my list because they're also not legendaries that require building a deck around them. Rin is also the legendary filler case, I mean situationally good
shaman has only ONE legendary that currently sees any play - thrall - and even it's kind of dubious in its deck. white eyes does see some play in wild w/ reincarnate shaman, and it's a good card in that deck, but the rest of the shaman legendaries are basically unplayable. moorabi and runespear are two of the worst class legendaries ever printed.
hunter has rexxar, kathrena, king krush, and rhokdelar all seeing at least a bit of play, and they're all pretty strong cards in the decks that utilize them.
warrior's recent legendaries have been sort of decent but largely unplayable because of the state of the class. it's sort of frustrating rotface and geomancer have such similar mana costs and effects, and really have little synergy with each other.
i don't know why people are hating on rin, it's a card that single-handedly wins control matchups.
either shaman or hunter, but probably shaman.
They got moorabi and the mistcaller.
It's not even a contest. Hunter wins this all day every day and the margin between hunter and the next class with the worst is staggering. They really made Hunter pay for Undertaker didn't they?
Easy pick, Hunter.
Yes, Shaman is in a bad spot now, and their legendaries have never really been the best, but many of their legendaries at least are not completely worthless by design and have some potential, unlike most of those that Hunter ever got. Deathstalker was the first one ever that was so much as considerable, and Kathrena is the first proper combo-card/build-around that Hunter ever received.
No. Warrior wins against every aggro deck. The ishue is that warrior cards are one or the other, or too expansive and value making, so against aggro you don't even play it, or too early and cheap removal that do nothing against value based decks. If decks had 60 instead of 30 cards warrior would be the best class by far. Even Warlock's hero power would be bad towards acolyte+comand
Everyone always complaining about Hunter's legendaries. However, it's one of the few classes where I've really liked the majority of the legendaries.
Dreadscale I used heavily in control hunter archetypes with Hunter's Mark and Acolyte of Pain.
King Krush and Kathrena are part of my favourite hunter deck: Cube Hunter.
Just picked up Swamp King Dredd but I love the stats on him and I find the ability cool.
Gahz'rilla had some of the coolest OTK decks available.
Knuckles and Acidmaw are pure trash but every class has to have some terrible legendaries.
This space is intentionally blank.
Hunter and it's no contest.
The problem is Hunter legendaries do little for Hunter decks. The Hunter usually can't utilize them to their fullest without weakening they deck. And when the legendary does not wreck your deck, it doesn't reliably do anything to help the Hunter win.
definitely hunter
all i could say about hunter legendaries is : cool cards but wrong class