Hearthpwn

Please explain your reasoning as to why it is wrong. Thank you.

I love the little rainbow lines, but yes the white dots are a pretty terrible design in my opinion 

Delete this thread, thanks.

Gonna try this in wild for sure.

Delete this thread, thanks.

There are some different ways to look at this. One important point would be to create an epistemological stability around what "makes a card the card that it is." Is it its name? What it does? Its art? From purely a game design perspective it ought to be all the text on the card besides its name. From an art direction perspective, something I believe is just as important, its the unification of that mechanical text, the name, the art, and hopefully the class.

I'm going to posit that a card isn't purely the text that is on it, nor can the art and name supersede that. I believe it is the combination of those elements. However, I do believe it is the case that if we are to look closely at some of the cards name checked in this thread, we will find that from a pure design perspective (artless/nameless), what class those cards would seem to be in and their realities are juxtaposed. It's easy for the flavor of a card to hide that Hearthstone's class identities seem to be a little loose, that's why I think the artless/nameless thought experiment is valuable. I believe that cards like Ferocious Howl, Curse of Weakness,  Anyfin Can Happen, and Gilded Gargoyle are prime examples of cards with pretty much unified and appropriate art direction, but mechanically are class-shifted. 

tl;dr { return(1);}

I feel like HS keeps running into a problem of power versus interaction.

Doing powerful things is fine as long as those powerful things can be interacted with.

When you don't have enough ways to interact with what your opponent is doing, power pike cards really warp the game. 

I sometimes wonder if this problem is created by some fundemental limitations of the game itself. Such as not being able to have actions take place on your opponents turn other than secrets, having no sideboard, or even only having so much space for text on cards.

I do think all this would do is lead to the "best decks", but I do think they would be different. Reluctance to craft certain new cards can limit their testing. If everyone could be encouraged to test out the new cards I think their integration would be faster and different. It is my opinion that the "best decks" right now are not the best. They are simply what seems reliable in comparison to what others are playing. It will only take a couple decks that also seem good to start shifting the meta. I believe they are already in the cards. They just need to be found. The problem right now is that meta is defined by how much leverage the pilot has. That ultimately is what makes win rate high. Yes how good the deck is, but mostly how good the deck is if you are piloting it in a suboptimal way. Not just a deck playing itself. This is a little different, although it has been worse in the past.

This is comedy gold. Ty.

Quote from Kyomugen >>

Warrior is overall performing very poorly in the meta right now. Just because a few skilled players had some success with the card, doesn't mean the card is good. A deck doesn't have to be top-tier to reach Legend. So long as it isn't complete trash and is played well by someone with enough time and patience, it can make it. All sorts of stuff makes it to Legend. Doesn't mean every single card in the list is worth 5 stars.

What you're suffering from here is confirmation bias. You like the card and want it to be good, and because a few people you respect have found some degree of success with it, you jump to the conclusion that it must therefore be as good as you think it is.

Spoilers: Card's still trash. It's just catching some people by surprise because, believe it or not, no one's running it because it sucks.

 Explain why it sucks instead of using a circular argument if you actually have a point to make. Just because a card is strong when it's a surprise doesn't lead to a nessesary conclusion that once it isn't a surprise it isn't good. 

The card at worst can be utilized to kill one thing the turn it comes out for 5 mana. If you can't kill at least one thing you wouldn't play it. If they are playing around it you would still be benefiting from their play, just like someone playing around spreading or mc tech, but if you maintain only a couple minions warrior will punish you for a lack of pressure. Cards do not have to be good in themselves to be good in a deck, cards can be good once they can work and they find their place. What we see here is sort of the reversal of what your saying. It's not that this card is bad, it just that warrior isn' typically favored in the meta right now, so it's easy to say this card is trash when actually the issue goes deeper than that.

Or its not very good too. Shrug Emoji. 

I approve of these changes. 

No problems on my Nokia 1200

Okay, enough is enough. A 1 mana 1/3 is TOO good. We've seen this time and time again...look at tunnel trogg and Dire Mole is just way better! It's so consistent! Tunnel trogg can sometimes be a 4/3 or 5/3, that is awful compared to the consistency of always 1 attack. Man, Blizzard please nerf Hunter...NOW!

 I don't like people comparing this to howling mine...the benefit of howling mine is much greater than this card. Drawing at end of turn is terrible compared to start of turn when it's symmetrical. It is almost ALWAYS an advantage for your opponent. ESPECIALLY in HS when you can't do anything on your opponents turn... 

Jeeves is a must in Wild Aggro druid. This is no replacement/improvement, much less flexible, gives less value, opponent essentially draws two cards per turn. The extra 3 health is only relevant if you're running Crazed Alchemist variants, even then you're opponent can easily take advantage of it. I wish it's stats were better I guess...oh well.