They both cost 8 mana, their respective combo cost about the same and they can both burst for around the same amount of damage. They can both be used as a finisher or a removal/board control since they have charge.
So whats wrong with Al'Akir that makes people think he's awful when he can basically do for Shamans what Grommash does for Warriors?
He was used in midrange shaman with rockbiters as well as doomhamer for a sort of triangle of synergy. The problem is midrange shaman fell out of favour and Al'akir requires more synergy than Grom does. Grom is independently more powerful and combos are more numurous and easier to pull off. Grom is also used in a fairly popular deck. Al'akir is very strong card just not in current popular decks. Al'akir doesn't fit in aggro shaman as he is too slow, he doesn't fit in mech shaman and Battlecry shaman doesn't really have room or the synergy for him. Grom on the other hand fits in most decks whether it's aggro as a finisher, control as a big minion, removal or finish and even midrange/patron for the same reasons.
Maybe if both cards were in the same class you would have an argument but Shaman and warrior are completely different classes and Alakir can't do for shaman what grommash does for warrior. I disagree
I was wondering why Grommash Hellscream is played and Al'Akir the Windlord isn't.
They both cost 8 mana, their respective combo cost about the same and they can both burst for around the same amount of damage. They can both be used as a finisher or a removal/board control since they have charge.
So whats wrong with Al'Akir that makes people think he's awful when he can basically do for Shamans what Grommash does for Warriors?
Shaman doesnt have so efficient removal + damage mitigation cards + too much RNG in the class (hp + cards)
'There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact'
Sherlock Holmes
Al Akir NEEDS an enabler like rockbiter, Grommash can enable himself.
Grommash has way more options for an enabler
Grommash is way less squishy
Taunt is actually bad for a win condition
Al Akir is not as bad as some people tend to believe, but by far not as good as Grommash.
He was used in midrange shaman with rockbiters as well as doomhamer for a sort of triangle of synergy. The problem is midrange shaman fell out of favour and Al'akir requires more synergy than Grom does. Grom is independently more powerful and combos are more numurous and easier to pull off. Grom is also used in a fairly popular deck. Al'akir is very strong card just not in current popular decks. Al'akir doesn't fit in aggro shaman as he is too slow, he doesn't fit in mech shaman and Battlecry shaman doesn't really have room or the synergy for him. Grom on the other hand fits in most decks whether it's aggro as a finisher, control as a big minion, removal or finish and even midrange/patron for the same reasons.
Al'Akir the Windlord is good. The problem is that nobody plays control or midrange shaman and in case of aggro it's basically a 8 mana Doomhammer.
They are more situational and dependent than other legendaries and 8-mana costing minions
Maybe if both cards were in the same class you would have an argument but Shaman and warrior are completely different classes and Alakir can't do for shaman what grommash does for warrior. I disagree