OK, so when I have been talking about Mind Blast, I have really been talking about "a 2 mana priest spell that deals 5 damage to the opponent's hero" (i.e. the card in a purely mechanical sense). As for mind blast as "a priest spell with a shadow priest theme", abstracted from what it actually does, then that is absolutely part of the priest identity.
But I would argue a card is only within a class' identity if both its theme and mechanics are simultaneously. Only satisfying one or the other still leaves you outside. That could be because you have put pirate artwork on a priest card, or because you have given priest a medic with a battlecry that increases your weapon's attack. Neither fit.
So IF direct face damage does fall outside of priest identity, then that is sufficient to say the Mind Blast as a whole does.
I don't know that the card needs a change, but it could be brought in line with priest identity by changing the mechanics only.
------------
Coming to your statement "And that is particularly true for Face Damage, which is not just a mechanic, but THE main mechanic towards victory between two opponents who fight in a direct encounter."
In this instance, by 'face damage' I am talking about face damage directly from the hand, particularly through spells and battlecries. Sloppy use of the term on my end, I know. The key point is that there are many different routes to do the 30 damage, not all are part of all class' identities and they cannot all be lumped into a single bucket in this context.
I think a really cool change to Mind Blast that would make sense as part of Priests' class identity would be to restore 5 health to your hero or if in Shadowform, deal 5 damage to the enemy hero.
It would give you a reason to run Shadowform as well, which IMO will be interesting once Anduin rotates out.
Maybe I just wish they did more interesting things around the Shadowform mechanic. The ability to switch in and out, synergy with being in, etc.
I don't take any issue with what was written in the OP, but I take a huge issue with what WASN'T written, and it's the same issue I take with Mike Donais and the ridiculous HoF choices (specifically Naturalize and Doomguard) of the latest announcement.
This game only exists at the levels of popularity enjoyed today because it had a staggeringly hyped beta period and initial release. And it had a staggeringly-hyped-beta-period-and-initial-release because it was based upon the Warcraft IP.
The class "identity" can be summarily dismissed as irrelevant to the balance choices made today, BUT if one wants to keep the identity concept in the game, it cannot be divorced from the class identity of the parent IP. There was clearly respect paid to this relationship in the classic set, which is why you saw decks like Freeze Mage be a thing (for those unaware, frost mages in WoW were the ultimate in crowd control and damage mitigation in pvp).
It is galling to watch cards like Mind Blast and Consecration be considered possible targets due to conflicts with "class identity". Mind Blast was a hard hitting direct damage spell in the shadow priest's spellbook since Vanilla WoW (I keep using past tense because I haven't played WoW in some time). Consecration was a short range AoE around the paladin character that did a bit of consistent damage if anyone wanted to attack the paladin. Sounds like these cards are right on track for class identity.
I could go on the Doomguard rant for a while, but I'll leave it here. The game's link to WoW has become more and more tenuous over the past year, and to an extent I understand that. There are only so many characters and locations on which to base cards, and Hearthstone expansions come out much more frequently than Warcraft expansions. However, I suspect I'm not alone in knowing that one of the things which keeps me playing Hearthstone is WoW nostalgia. There comes a point where, on principle, I'm gonna bow out and return to my Magic: the Gathering roots if most of the recognizable links to WoW are removed from standard.
I know the argument: Hearthstone is its own game and a lot of the fan base doesn't overlap with WoW, so it's not tethered to those considerations. But unless Blizzard has done some serious market research and feels confident that I am the extreme minority, they would be well advised to resist completely removing WoW class identity from the equation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
I don't think you are wrong to think along these lines; I have never played WoW but years of HS led me to looking deep into its lore. Its not quite the connection actual WoW players have but it does make me really appreciate the links and the translations of WoW characters/abilities into cards. In any case I am not suggesting Mind Blast or any of the other cards actually be changed, but simply identifying where the identity argument could be legitimately applied.
Also, fairness to the devs on this: they have not changed Mind Blast but chose to sit it out and see what happens after all the resurrection cards rotate out. My interpretation of their actions and non-actions is that they would rather not change any of the cards unless the long term health of the game is at stake. And that is an approach I can get behind (even if the precise details can and should be scrutinised!). Keep the ties to WoW unless they are actually damaging, then the fact HS is its own game should be prioritised.
But the IF is arbitrary. In the same way the lack of self-healing for Hunter is.
In case such a mechanic was so obviously out of the Priest domain, it would have felt awkward to even think about it.
Instead, it is a BASIC card, there from the beginning. So it's not obvious, or crystal-clear, that a direct face damage is not fitting Priest.
It is simply a matter of CHOICE on their side, about which restrictions to apply to a class, for design convenience (AND THEN call it part of class identity).
But it is an ex-post definition made on their own arbitrary choices. Class Identity is elsewhere.
___
In abstract, giving mechanic X only to class 1, 2, 3 DOES contribute to their Class Identity (by contrast with 4, 5, 6).
My point is that the same X could equally be given to 4, 5, 6 instead, and nobody would notice anything wrong (given a proper theme).
X is not a inhirent (obvious) property of a given class.
In other words, while mechanics contribute to Class Identity ingame, Class Identity exists before mechanics.
Sure it is arbitrary to begin with, I never said otherwise. However, that does not mean the mechanics have been allotted randomly and in some cases it is clear where your statement "My point is that the same X could equally be given to 4, 5, 6 instead, and nobody would notice anything wrong (given a proper theme)" does not hold.
Consider healing->damage in priest and weapon buffs in rogue. You cannot swap the classes these are in without it making no sense anymore. Some mechanics have pre-requisites before they can be given to a class, and regardless of theme, mechanics feed off other mechanics. Now you could argue you could equally well swap healing and weapons while you are at it, but it still shows the class identities are more carefully put together than simply dishing mechanics out arbitrarily.
The direct face damage mechanic is less clear cut, certainly. But again that was the point from the start: can we discern whether it lies in priest's current identity based on how the devs have chosen to design priest cards in the last few years? Evidence suggests it has been dropped, but that doesn't force the devs to ret-con anything unless they present a problem for the game's health.
Final thing: I would reword your last statement to "In other words, while mechanics contribute to Class Identity ingame, part of that Class Identity exists before mechanics." I believe that is what you meant anyway but it wasn't clear on the first read.
Kinda, yes, i have to rectify i brought to an unreal extreme the distribution of mechanics. What i meant, tho, is that mechanics do not exist on their own, as attributes of Class.
However, in your example Weapon is already a theme. Generic, but a theme.
The mechanic is: "ability to deal damage from hand (board-independent), distributed across n turns, with self-damage tradeoff" (or any better definition). And it could have appeared, maybe slightly different, for Cursed Artifacts instead.
And no, in my last statement i meant exactly what i wrote. Your rewording is better than mine if we contextualise Class Identity exclusively to HS. But i daresay Class Identity is larger and older than HS. Actually, HS IS BASED on Class Identities, with extra tweaks of its own (implied by gameplay choices).
What we see ingame is a (partly arbitrary) rendering of an idea that exists before the game. Priest is defined as a Warcraft Class, and it is purely descriptive (a set of themes, where *Face* is not defined, hence Direct Face Damage is not a thing at this stage), and it finds its specific realization in WoW, and now HS (where Face appears).
So first comes the class concept, right after come the themes attaining to the concept, and then ingame mechanics that make those themes functional for HS.
Game mechanics have their own value in terms of gameplay (and we could definitely play a game with no themes), so mechanics also have an origin on their own, but they are not a core part of Class Identity. Just their ingame expression, the most superficial part of Class Identity.
Ie. Take Chess. Tower goes straight, Bishop goes diagonally. If i swapped the mechanics, you couldn't say that i removed or swapped the Identity of those pieces. HS Classes are more complicated ofc, but the principle is the same.
Surely, they can finally make the final cut: no more Direct Face Damage on Priest. Fine. But whatever their move, it will be dictated by differentiation in gameplay.
Priest will not feel any less or any more Priest (Class Identity damaged or improved), if we keep or remove Direct Face Damage.
They should call it Gameplay Differentiation, not Class Identity.
The idea of a priest transcends HS yes, and it transcends Warcraft and the fantasy genre beyond that. Heck it even transcends fiction, though I don't suppose the person running your local church would be too keen on the idea of embracing the void and using mind blast on anyone.
I am being facetious of course, but it does help make a point: shadow spells are not a feature common to all versions of priests and we are discussing one particular incarnation of them. That does not take away from the concept -> theme -> mechanic hierarchy, but it does argue that when talking about identity we should be focused on the game at hand, i.e. HS. At which point the following can be said:
Class identity in HS is built up of all of a concept, themes and mechanics.
The latter may be the most superficial, but as far as the balance of HS is concerned they are also the most important.
There is evidence the shifting of identity with time, especially on the mechanics front, has left the face damage spells and battlecries behind.
What the devs do about it is up to them.
You are welcome to call it gameplay differentiation if you like, but at that point it is just semantics and it is clear the devs include mechanics in identity.
----------------------------------------
Regarding weapons: there is a definite distinction between weapons and weapon buffs at both a mechanic and thematic level. Mechanically the buffs are closer to minion buffs than they are to weapons.
The best way I can think of at the moment to show they are thematically different the string of overlapping themes: weapon -> poisoned weapon -> poison -> poisonous minion -> minion. Weapon and poison are thematically distinct, so for poisoned weapon to overlap with both, it cannot lie entirely inside the weapon theme. (Venn diagrams would make this much easier...)
From here the buffs could have landed in any of the weapon classes with a suitable theme yes. I'm not sure if this little weapon discussion was needed at all but it is interesting nonetheless.
--------------------------------
Anyway, we've gone some way off topic given the topic was only meant to be about the mechanics (I added a bit to the original post to make that clearer).
On the cynic's side: the devs have never said much about what their picture of each class' identity actually is or communicated when or why it has changed. Sets like KofFT only confuse matters and then give players reason to doubt justifications based on class identity.
Their ideas on what a class's identity can change over time. I know it doesn't feel this way, but 5 years is still on the young side for a CCG. This game is very different than it was at beta, and release, and even before Standard was introduced.
The game is changing (usually for the better) and their views on what classes should or should not be change along with the game.
Raven was their first full year of sets that never had to be designed with pre-Standard sets in mind. They tried a lot of new things (Quests, Hero Cards, Genn/Baku). And they clearly learned a lot about those types of things, and why they weren't so great, even though they were initially very cool.
Nice analysis OP, but you stop short of explanations why the drift, shift of class identity occurs. It is simply the demand of the target audience to create a polarized meta. You just give up class identity when you deepen RPS. Aggressive -vs - OTK is the dominant battle of win conditions. Class identities has become irrelevant when the target audience demands a mindless game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Although the armor druids did indeed annoy me I think the worst threat to class identity is strong packages of neutral cards that can successfully be used by any class. This has happened a number of times in the game's history.
The problem is that some class identities need to be redefined in the current state of the game. I think mind blast will go by the wayside now that shadow visions and all resurrection items are disappearing, but that still leaves cancer like Inner Fire. Really think that priest's identify should be buffing hp and healing one's own minions along with high hp, lower attack minions.
Like I always say, every rotation, blizz should go and look at the classic and basic cards. HoF stuff that no longer fits the class, and create new cards to replace these. Plan around the next 1-2 years of expansion mechanics. Also, look at what cards that are rotating out that were healthy for the game and switch them over to classic and basic.
All I can see druid doing post-rotation is Malygos.
Hunter play the insanely OP and undercosted DK and can...
1- Healing a lot with many beasts with lifesteal and rush.
2- Kill very easy big minions with poison beasts.
3- Outvalue and outlast any control deck, making the entire deck of the opponent a piece of garbage, even if value and control was the "class identity" of the opponent class.
4- Mass removal small minions with the battlecry.
5- Gain armor.
6- Mass removal big minions with deathrattle 2 damage + poison, even a full board of dragons are completely useless vs this abomination.
All of this with a single card costing only 6 manas and never was nerfed, even being the most deserved nerf card in this game history.
It is funny people talking about class identity when a card like this exists.
Hunter play the insanely OP and undercosted DK and can...
1- Healing a lot with many beasts with lifesteal and rush.
2- Kill very easy big minions with poison beasts.
3- Outvalue and outlast any control deck, making the entire deck of the opponent a piece of garbage, even if value and control was the "class identity" of the opponent class.
4- Mass removal small minions with the battlecry.
5- Gain armor.
6- Mass removal big minions with deathrattle 2 damage + poison, even a full board of dragons are completely useless vs this abomination.
All of this with a single card costing only 6 manas and never was nerfed, even being the most deserved nerf card in this game history.
It is funny people talking about class identity when a card like this exists.
Actually I think it is better for the game if any class can do everything, just in their own unique way. All classes should have card draw, hard removal, soft removal, board clears, taunts, healing/armor, etc...
It is much easier to balance like this. For example, if there is an aggro-defined meta and one class has no cheap board clear, then that class is fucked. If all classes have their own cheap board clear, then all classes have a chance to compete.
It is much easier to balance like this. For example, if there is an aggro-defined meta and one class has no cheap board clear, then that class is fucked. If all classes have their own cheap board clear, then all classes have a chance to compete.
True, but if some classes rather go aggro themselves successfully, that also works. The problem starts if a class lacks the tools to counter the strongest style of play and can't play that style themseves. Hunter has actually been is that awkward position several times in the past: not having the best aggro nor midrange deck and lacking control tools as a class identity.
OK, so when I have been talking about Mind Blast, I have really been talking about "a 2 mana priest spell that deals 5 damage to the opponent's hero" (i.e. the card in a purely mechanical sense). As for mind blast as "a priest spell with a shadow priest theme", abstracted from what it actually does, then that is absolutely part of the priest identity.
But I would argue a card is only within a class' identity if both its theme and mechanics are simultaneously. Only satisfying one or the other still leaves you outside. That could be because you have put pirate artwork on a priest card, or because you have given priest a medic with a battlecry that increases your weapon's attack. Neither fit.
So IF direct face damage does fall outside of priest identity, then that is sufficient to say the Mind Blast as a whole does.
I don't know that the card needs a change, but it could be brought in line with priest identity by changing the mechanics only.
------------
Coming to your statement "And that is particularly true for Face Damage, which is not just a mechanic, but THE main mechanic towards victory between two opponents who fight in a direct encounter."
In this instance, by 'face damage' I am talking about face damage directly from the hand, particularly through spells and battlecries. Sloppy use of the term on my end, I know. The key point is that there are many different routes to do the 30 damage, not all are part of all class' identities and they cannot all be lumped into a single bucket in this context.
I think a really cool change to Mind Blast that would make sense as part of Priests' class identity would be to restore 5 health to your hero or if in Shadowform, deal 5 damage to the enemy hero.
It would give you a reason to run Shadowform as well, which IMO will be interesting once Anduin rotates out.
Maybe I just wish they did more interesting things around the Shadowform mechanic. The ability to switch in and out, synergy with being in, etc.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
I don't take any issue with what was written in the OP, but I take a huge issue with what WASN'T written, and it's the same issue I take with Mike Donais and the ridiculous HoF choices (specifically Naturalize and Doomguard) of the latest announcement.
This game only exists at the levels of popularity enjoyed today because it had a staggeringly hyped beta period and initial release. And it had a staggeringly-hyped-beta-period-and-initial-release because it was based upon the Warcraft IP.
The class "identity" can be summarily dismissed as irrelevant to the balance choices made today, BUT if one wants to keep the identity concept in the game, it cannot be divorced from the class identity of the parent IP. There was clearly respect paid to this relationship in the classic set, which is why you saw decks like Freeze Mage be a thing (for those unaware, frost mages in WoW were the ultimate in crowd control and damage mitigation in pvp).
It is galling to watch cards like Mind Blast and Consecration be considered possible targets due to conflicts with "class identity". Mind Blast was a hard hitting direct damage spell in the shadow priest's spellbook since Vanilla WoW (I keep using past tense because I haven't played WoW in some time). Consecration was a short range AoE around the paladin character that did a bit of consistent damage if anyone wanted to attack the paladin. Sounds like these cards are right on track for class identity.
I could go on the Doomguard rant for a while, but I'll leave it here. The game's link to WoW has become more and more tenuous over the past year, and to an extent I understand that. There are only so many characters and locations on which to base cards, and Hearthstone expansions come out much more frequently than Warcraft expansions. However, I suspect I'm not alone in knowing that one of the things which keeps me playing Hearthstone is WoW nostalgia. There comes a point where, on principle, I'm gonna bow out and return to my Magic: the Gathering roots if most of the recognizable links to WoW are removed from standard.
I know the argument: Hearthstone is its own game and a lot of the fan base doesn't overlap with WoW, so it's not tethered to those considerations. But unless Blizzard has done some serious market research and feels confident that I am the extreme minority, they would be well advised to resist completely removing WoW class identity from the equation.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
I don't think you are wrong to think along these lines; I have never played WoW but years of HS led me to looking deep into its lore. Its not quite the connection actual WoW players have but it does make me really appreciate the links and the translations of WoW characters/abilities into cards. In any case I am not suggesting Mind Blast or any of the other cards actually be changed, but simply identifying where the identity argument could be legitimately applied.
Also, fairness to the devs on this: they have not changed Mind Blast but chose to sit it out and see what happens after all the resurrection cards rotate out. My interpretation of their actions and non-actions is that they would rather not change any of the cards unless the long term health of the game is at stake. And that is an approach I can get behind (even if the precise details can and should be scrutinised!). Keep the ties to WoW unless they are actually damaging, then the fact HS is its own game should be prioritised.
Exactly, "IF direct face damage falls outside."
But the IF is arbitrary. In the same way the lack of self-healing for Hunter is.
In case such a mechanic was so obviously out of the Priest domain, it would have felt awkward to even think about it.
Instead, it is a BASIC card, there from the beginning. So it's not obvious, or crystal-clear, that a direct face damage is not fitting Priest.
It is simply a matter of CHOICE on their side, about which restrictions to apply to a class, for design convenience (AND THEN call it part of class identity).
But it is an ex-post definition made on their own arbitrary choices. Class Identity is elsewhere.
___
In abstract, giving mechanic X only to class 1, 2, 3 DOES contribute to their Class Identity (by contrast with 4, 5, 6).
My point is that the same X could equally be given to 4, 5, 6 instead, and nobody would notice anything wrong (given a proper theme).
X is not a inhirent (obvious) property of a given class.
In other words, while mechanics contribute to Class Identity ingame, Class Identity exists before mechanics.
Sure it is arbitrary to begin with, I never said otherwise. However, that does not mean the mechanics have been allotted randomly and in some cases it is clear where your statement "My point is that the same X could equally be given to 4, 5, 6 instead, and nobody would notice anything wrong (given a proper theme)" does not hold.
Consider healing->damage in priest and weapon buffs in rogue. You cannot swap the classes these are in without it making no sense anymore. Some mechanics have pre-requisites before they can be given to a class, and regardless of theme, mechanics feed off other mechanics. Now you could argue you could equally well swap healing and weapons while you are at it, but it still shows the class identities are more carefully put together than simply dishing mechanics out arbitrarily.
The direct face damage mechanic is less clear cut, certainly. But again that was the point from the start: can we discern whether it lies in priest's current identity based on how the devs have chosen to design priest cards in the last few years? Evidence suggests it has been dropped, but that doesn't force the devs to ret-con anything unless they present a problem for the game's health.
Final thing: I would reword your last statement to "In other words, while mechanics contribute to Class Identity ingame, part of that Class Identity exists before mechanics." I believe that is what you meant anyway but it wasn't clear on the first read.
Kinda, yes, i have to rectify i brought to an unreal extreme the distribution of mechanics. What i meant, tho, is that mechanics do not exist on their own, as attributes of Class.
However, in your example Weapon is already a theme. Generic, but a theme.
The mechanic is: "ability to deal damage from hand (board-independent), distributed across n turns, with self-damage tradeoff" (or any better definition). And it could have appeared, maybe slightly different, for Cursed Artifacts instead.
And no, in my last statement i meant exactly what i wrote. Your rewording is better than mine if we contextualise Class Identity exclusively to HS. But i daresay Class Identity is larger and older than HS. Actually, HS IS BASED on Class Identities, with extra tweaks of its own (implied by gameplay choices).
What we see ingame is a (partly arbitrary) rendering of an idea that exists before the game. Priest is defined as a Warcraft Class, and it is purely descriptive (a set of themes, where *Face* is not defined, hence Direct Face Damage is not a thing at this stage), and it finds its specific realization in WoW, and now HS (where Face appears).
So first comes the class concept, right after come the themes attaining to the concept, and then ingame mechanics that make those themes functional for HS.
Game mechanics have their own value in terms of gameplay (and we could definitely play a game with no themes), so mechanics also have an origin on their own, but they are not a core part of Class Identity. Just their ingame expression, the most superficial part of Class Identity.
Ie. Take Chess. Tower goes straight, Bishop goes diagonally. If i swapped the mechanics, you couldn't say that i removed or swapped the Identity of those pieces. HS Classes are more complicated ofc, but the principle is the same.
Surely, they can finally make the final cut: no more Direct Face Damage on Priest. Fine. But whatever their move, it will be dictated by differentiation in gameplay.
Priest will not feel any less or any more Priest (Class Identity damaged or improved), if we keep or remove Direct Face Damage.
They should call it Gameplay Differentiation, not Class Identity.
The idea of a priest transcends HS yes, and it transcends Warcraft and the fantasy genre beyond that. Heck it even transcends fiction, though I don't suppose the person running your local church would be too keen on the idea of embracing the void and using mind blast on anyone.
I am being facetious of course, but it does help make a point: shadow spells are not a feature common to all versions of priests and we are discussing one particular incarnation of them. That does not take away from the concept -> theme -> mechanic hierarchy, but it does argue that when talking about identity we should be focused on the game at hand, i.e. HS. At which point the following can be said:
You are welcome to call it gameplay differentiation if you like, but at that point it is just semantics and it is clear the devs include mechanics in identity.
----------------------------------------
Regarding weapons: there is a definite distinction between weapons and weapon buffs at both a mechanic and thematic level. Mechanically the buffs are closer to minion buffs than they are to weapons.
The best way I can think of at the moment to show they are thematically different the string of overlapping themes: weapon -> poisoned weapon -> poison -> poisonous minion -> minion. Weapon and poison are thematically distinct, so for poisoned weapon to overlap with both, it cannot lie entirely inside the weapon theme. (Venn diagrams would make this much easier...)
From here the buffs could have landed in any of the weapon classes with a suitable theme yes. I'm not sure if this little weapon discussion was needed at all but it is interesting nonetheless.
--------------------------------
Anyway, we've gone some way off topic given the topic was only meant to be about the mechanics (I added a bit to the original post to make that clearer).
Their ideas on what a class's identity can change over time. I know it doesn't feel this way, but 5 years is still on the young side for a CCG. This game is very different than it was at beta, and release, and even before Standard was introduced.
The game is changing (usually for the better) and their views on what classes should or should not be change along with the game.
Raven was their first full year of sets that never had to be designed with pre-Standard sets in mind. They tried a lot of new things (Quests, Hero Cards, Genn/Baku). And they clearly learned a lot about those types of things, and why they weren't so great, even though they were initially very cool.
Nice analysis OP, but you stop short of explanations why the drift, shift of class identity occurs. It is simply the demand of the target audience to create a polarized meta. You just give up class identity when you deepen RPS. Aggressive -vs - OTK is the dominant battle of win conditions. Class identities has become irrelevant when the target audience demands a mindless game.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Although the armor druids did indeed annoy me I think the worst threat to class identity is strong packages of neutral cards that can successfully be used by any class. This has happened a number of times in the game's history.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
The problem is that some class identities need to be redefined in the current state of the game. I think mind blast will go by the wayside now that shadow visions and all resurrection items are disappearing, but that still leaves cancer like Inner Fire. Really think that priest's identify should be buffing hp and healing one's own minions along with high hp, lower attack minions.
Like I always say, every rotation, blizz should go and look at the classic and basic cards. HoF stuff that no longer fits the class, and create new cards to replace these. Plan around the next 1-2 years of expansion mechanics. Also, look at what cards that are rotating out that were healthy for the game and switch them over to classic and basic.
All I can see druid doing post-rotation is Malygos.
Class identity? What is that?
Hunter play the insanely OP and undercosted DK and can...
1- Healing a lot with many beasts with lifesteal and rush.
2- Kill very easy big minions with poison beasts.
3- Outvalue and outlast any control deck, making the entire deck of the opponent a piece of garbage, even if value and control was the "class identity" of the opponent class.
4- Mass removal small minions with the battlecry.
5- Gain armor.
6- Mass removal big minions with deathrattle 2 damage + poison, even a full board of dragons are completely useless vs this abomination.
All of this with a single card costing only 6 manas and never was nerfed, even being the most deserved nerf card in this game history.
It is funny people talking about class identity when a card like this exists.
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/general-discussion/212005-group-therapy-need-to-blow-off-steam-mega-salty
Actually I think it is better for the game if any class can do everything, just in their own unique way. All classes should have card draw, hard removal, soft removal, board clears, taunts, healing/armor, etc...
It is much easier to balance like this. For example, if there is an aggro-defined meta and one class has no cheap board clear, then that class is fucked. If all classes have their own cheap board clear, then all classes have a chance to compete.
True, but if some classes rather go aggro themselves successfully, that also works. The problem starts if a class lacks the tools to counter the strongest style of play and can't play that style themseves. Hunter has actually been is that awkward position several times in the past: not having the best aggro nor midrange deck and lacking control tools as a class identity.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide