Amazing design, very comparable to stormshear windcaller except much better. These kinds of 'small quest' cards, where you do something to make something strong, but not instantly game winning happen are a super cool and balanced design, and I really think the game needs more of this.
I agree that "small quest" card are a really nice idea.
But I still think this one is too strong. Ragnaros the Firelord was removed from Standard because it was kind of an auto include in every deck (except very aggro one) due to his power. And most of the time if you can’t remove it immediately your chances of winning are decreasing drastically.
Being able to deal 8 damage to face as a Mage with all the burst you have is quite game changing I think. And I don’t speak about potential combo with Youthful Brewmaster, Zola the Gorgon or Drakkari Enchanter.
Overall, I question the fact to bring back a Hall of fame minion into standard. The design of the card is really cool otherwise.
But I still think this one is too strong. Ragnaros the Firelord was removed from Standard because it was kind of an auto include in every deck (except very aggro one) due to his power.
I highlighted the relevant part for you (and for everyone else^^) there - as the reason why it was put into the Hall of Fame.
Making it Mage-exclusive and further limiting it as you have to build your deck around the condition, is a somewhat different situation than every single deck running a neutral card because it's just good.
But I still think this one is too strong. Ragnaros the Firelord was removed from Standard because it was kind of an auto include in every deck (except very aggro one) due to his power.
I highlighted the relevant part for you (and for everyone else^^) there - as the reason why it was put into the Hall of Fame.
Making it Mage-exclusive and further limiting it as you have to build your deck around the condition, is a somewhat different situation than every single deck running a neutral card because it's just good.
Fair point. But I am afraid that it will become an auto include for mage. Because the requirement is not that hard too fullfil, especially with the support cards.
Building a deck around this card will not result to anything decent. I think this card will be an extra trouble for the enemies. However, it is a card that can define the mage meta as it seems.
But I still think this one is too strong. Ragnaros the Firelord was removed from Standard because it was kind of an auto include in every deck (except very aggro one) due to his power.
I highlighted the relevant part for you (and for everyone else^^) there - as the reason why it was put into the Hall of Fame.
Making it Mage-exclusive and further limiting it as you have to build your deck around the condition, is a somewhat different situation than every single deck running a neutral card because it's just good.
I would also like to remind you that the old Ragnaros the Firelord was played a lot less when he was Hofed because of Dr. Boom and a faster pirate-filled metagame. Even in Wild, The Lich King is played over him in most decks.
Blizzard often does choose exactly descriptive wording for a card's text. The linguist guy is correct: the card says 8, not more or less.
A lot of cards' effects are not fully explained and can only be completely figured out through play. Blizzard does it on purpose in order to make the text shorter.
I'm an amateur linguist, and I am constantly horrified at Blizzard's English text choices, but they know their English-speaking audience: Americans. The localized versions of the cards are usually more complete.
This is not a matter of opinion. You are objectively incorrect.
/begin argument
The card says "If your hero power has dealt 8 damage this game . . . "
The opposite of this statement is "If your hero power has not dealt 8 damage this game . . . "
Both describe a factual state of being. Because they are perfect opposites, one is true or the other is true. There is not a third option.
Consider a game where the hero power has dealt 9 damage:
"Your hero power has dealt 8 damage" or "Your hero power has not dealt 8 damage" is true. Not both.
9 damage is greater than 8 damage. In order to have done 9 damage, you must have done 8 damage.
Therefore, "Your hero power has dealt 8 damage" is a true statement in this game.
/end argument
If you are going to reach a different conclusion, point to the premise that is incorrect please.
The nature of valuation or quantity of numbers includes lesser values, i.e. if you have 9 you must have 8.
If Blizzard wanted a card that required exactly 8 damage done, it would require the qualifier "exactly". The entire reason the word "exactly" exists in the English language is to distinguish the otherwise implied inclusive nature of valuation/quantity.
And I repeat, if you reach a different conclusion, I am dying to know with which premise you find fault.
FUCK!
First of all, you have misquoted the card text. The text is written in simple past as opposed to past perfect. You rightly put it in past perfect, since that is the correct tense/aspect combination according to traditional English grammar, but Americans often do not use the past perfect in the traditional way.
The language can be interpreted in several ways.
1. If your Hero Power dealt exactly 8 damage at least one time this game... This would be a completely credible interpretation if in the game of Hearthstone the Mage Hero Power could be expected to reach 8 damage.
2. If your Hero Power dealt a total of damage that equals exactly 8 up until this moment during the game... 9 damage is not 8 damage. It is 8 +1, which is not 8. 9 is at least 8, but it is not 8. It's possible to have dealt 9 damage without ever having dealt exactly 8 damage in the past. If I've earned $100 in total for a single time period, can I say that I've earned $50? Sure, but I'd be lying by omission.
Linguistically, the use of the simple past implies that the number in question could be exact, since the simple past is used to describe discrete and completed events that the speaker does not expect to be repeated. Had they chosen to write it it in past perfect, the implication would be that the processing of dealing damage could be ongoing or incomplete. Of course, many Americans do not use the past perfect in this context, and they do not draw a distinction.
3. If your Hero Power has dealt 8 or more damage the game... We all know that this is the meaning of the card. So why not just write it that way?
The inclusion or omission of the word "has" doesn't change the opposing statement. That is, the opposite of "Your hero power dealt 8 damage" is "Your hero power has not dealt 8 damage" (If the game was over, the opposite would be "did not deal", but that's a trivial case; the games we care about have not concluded).
So argument holds.
It seems you take issue with the premise, "In order to have done 9 damage, you must have done 8 damage" which suggests you agree with the statement "You can do 9 damage without doing 8 damage". That is not correct as the words "this game" clearly indicate a cumulative count.
I will concede that if the words "this game" did not appear, it would be reasonable to interpret that the only way you trigger this condition is by somehow getting this into a quest warrior or Majordomo deck. In that case, the more reasonable interpretation would be that the hero power must do 8 damage in one activation. But those words do appear, so that is not the case.
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.
The inclusion or omission of the word "has" doesn't change the opposing statement. That is, the opposite of "Your hero power dealt 8 damage" is "Your hero power has not dealt 8 damage" (If the game was over, the opposite would be "did not deal", but that's a trivial case; the games we care about have not concluded).
So argument holds.
It seems you take issue with the premise, "In order to have done 9 damage, you must have done 8 damage" which suggests you agree with the statement "You can do 9 damage without doing 8 damage". That is not correct as the words "this game" clearly indicate a cumulative count.
I will concede that if the words "this game" did not appear, it would be reasonable to interpret that the only way you trigger this condition is by somehow getting this into a quest warrior or Majordomo deck. In that case, the more reasonable interpretation would be that the hero power must do 8 damage in one activation. But those words do appear, so that is not the case.
He deals 3 damage, and Janalai's effect is reduced from 8 to 5. He then later deals 9 damage (3 damage three times) and Janalai's effect is reduced from 5 to Ready!
Can we end this now?
The card's condition is "if your hero power has dealt at least 8 damage in any way this game," even if it's not expressly worded exactly like that.
Yes Kaladin, I know this. I am more than aware of how it functions.
For some reason, it has become deeply important to me to plumb the depths of propositional logic to decide if doing 9 damage does indeed mean you've done 8 damage.
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.
Yes Kaladin, I know this. I am more than aware of how it functions.
For some reason, it has become deeply important to me to plumb the depths of propositional logic to decide if doing 9 damage does indeed mean you've done 8 damage.
I ran 10k today, and that implies that I ran 8k first. I think the wording is perfectly fine. It is not like you lose quest rewards if you keep doing the quests after you completed them either, so it is even consistant for the game. I would not consider exact minion stat requirements for cards like Star Aligner.
Anyway, Kaladin is right, this discussion is boring.
On topic: For max value, an odd mage would have to spend 8 mana by turn 7 on heropowers, which is quite a lot! Without major additional synergies, this is hardly a powerhouse...
Yes Kaladin, I know this. I am more than aware of how it functions.
For some reason, it has become deeply important to me to plumb the depths of propositional logic to decide if doing 9 damage does indeed mean you've done 8 damage.
I ran 10k today, and that implies that I ran 8k first. I think the wording is perfectly fine. It is not like you lose quest rewards if you keep doing the quests after you completed them either, so it is even consistant for the game. I would not consider exact minion stat requirements for cards like Star Aligner.
Anyway, Kaladin is right, this discussion is boring.
On topic: For max value, an odd mage would have to spend 8 mana by turn 7 on heropowers, which is quite a lot! Without major additional synergies, this is hardly a powerhouse...
It's an easy calculation really, you need to use hero power 4 times by turn 7 if you wanna play janalai on curve, so you need to use hero power every turn from 2-6 except one, that's unrealistic and you end up losing so much tempo that you lose probably, so to play janalai on turn 7 you need the hero power enablers.
The best way to actually do something well is have no idea what you're doing. Then what you're doing will become what you have no idea you're doing, at which point since you're doing what you're doing without knowing what you're doing you're doing what you're doing without knowing you're doing it.
I'm already playing my own version of Odd Mage just for fun, and in the few games I remember to keep track last night, it's quite easy to ping 4 times before turn 7.
At the absolute worst, it's easy to ping 3 times by turn 5 or 6, since a lot of games go T1 Fire Fly, T2 ping, T3 Flame Elemental + Ping/Black Cat, T4 Ping/Tar Creeper/Stonehill, T5 3-drop + Ping.
I agree that "small quest" card are a really nice idea.
But I still think this one is too strong. Ragnaros the Firelord was removed from Standard because it was kind of an auto include in every deck (except very aggro one) due to his power. And most of the time if you can’t remove it immediately your chances of winning are decreasing drastically.
Being able to deal 8 damage to face as a Mage with all the burst you have is quite game changing I think. And I don’t speak about potential combo with Youthful Brewmaster, Zola the Gorgon or Drakkari Enchanter.
Overall, I question the fact to bring back a Hall of fame minion into standard. The design of the card is really cool otherwise.
I highlighted the relevant part for you (and for everyone else^^) there - as the reason why it was put into the Hall of Fame.
Making it Mage-exclusive and further limiting it as you have to build your deck around the condition, is a somewhat different situation than every single deck running a neutral card because it's just good.
Fair point. But I am afraid that it will become an auto include for mage. Because the requirement is not that hard too fullfil, especially with the support cards.
Let see what happen ^^
Building a deck around this card will not result to anything decent. I think this card will be an extra trouble for the enemies. However, it is a card that can define the mage meta as it seems.
Don't Forget about Molten Reflection...
Believe in potential; the multiverse blesses some beings with extraordinary traits, with the potential to do—to be—great things.
I would also like to remind you that the old Ragnaros the Firelord was played a lot less when he was Hofed because of Dr. Boom and a faster pirate-filled metagame. Even in Wild, The Lich King is played over him in most decks.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
First of all, you have misquoted the card text. The text is written in simple past as opposed to past perfect. You rightly put it in past perfect, since that is the correct tense/aspect combination according to traditional English grammar, but Americans often do not use the past perfect in the traditional way.
The language can be interpreted in several ways.
1. If your Hero Power dealt exactly 8 damage at least one time this game... This would be a completely credible interpretation if in the game of Hearthstone the Mage Hero Power could be expected to reach 8 damage.
2. If your Hero Power dealt a total of damage that equals exactly 8 up until this moment during the game... 9 damage is not 8 damage. It is 8 +1, which is not 8. 9 is at least 8, but it is not 8. It's possible to have dealt 9 damage without ever having dealt exactly 8 damage in the past. If I've earned $100 in total for a single time period, can I say that I've earned $50? Sure, but I'd be lying by omission.
Linguistically, the use of the simple past implies that the number in question could be exact, since the simple past is used to describe discrete and completed events that the speaker does not expect to be repeated. Had they chosen to write it it in past perfect, the implication would be that the processing of dealing damage could be ongoing or incomplete. Of course, many Americans do not use the past perfect in this context, and they do not draw a distinction.
3. If your Hero Power has dealt 8 or more damage the game... We all know that this is the meaning of the card. So why not just write it that way?
This argument is pointless. Watch the stream. It's not "exactly 8 damage."
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
The inclusion or omission of the word "has" doesn't change the opposing statement. That is, the opposite of "Your hero power dealt 8 damage" is "Your hero power has not dealt 8 damage" (If the game was over, the opposite would be "did not deal", but that's a trivial case; the games we care about have not concluded).
So argument holds.
It seems you take issue with the premise, "In order to have done 9 damage, you must have done 8 damage" which suggests you agree with the statement "You can do 9 damage without doing 8 damage". That is not correct as the words "this game" clearly indicate a cumulative count.
I will concede that if the words "this game" did not appear, it would be reasonable to interpret that the only way you trigger this condition is by somehow getting this into a quest warrior or Majordomo deck. In that case, the more reasonable interpretation would be that the hero power must do 8 damage in one activation. But those words do appear, so that is not the case.
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.
WATCH THE STREAM.
The card's condition is "if your hero power has dealt at least 8 damage in any way this game," even if it's not expressly worded exactly like that.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
Yes Kaladin, I know this. I am more than aware of how it functions.
For some reason, it has become deeply important to me to plumb the depths of propositional logic to decide if doing 9 damage does indeed mean you've done 8 damage.
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 ran 10k today, and that implies that I ran 8k first. I think the wording is perfectly fine. It is not like you lose quest rewards if you keep doing the quests after you completed them either, so it is even consistant for the game. I would not consider exact minion stat requirements for cards like Star Aligner.
Anyway, Kaladin is right, this discussion is boring.
On topic:
For max value, an odd mage would have to spend 8 mana by turn 7 on heropowers, which is quite a lot! Without major additional synergies, this is hardly a powerhouse...
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
It's an easy calculation really, you need to use hero power 4 times by turn 7 if you wanna play janalai on curve, so you need to use hero power every turn from 2-6 except one, that's unrealistic and you end up losing so much tempo that you lose probably, so to play janalai on turn 7 you need the hero power enablers.
Why would you want to play her on turn 7 though...
The most common play involving Jan'alai is going to be turn 10 with Zola the Gorgon.
Which means there won't be any real rush to get the count up to 8.
I aggre. This card is good in any fase of the game.
Rag back in Standard.
Well that's new.
Whats next, Coldlight Oracle.
The best way to actually do something well is have no idea what you're doing. Then what you're doing will become what you have no idea you're doing, at which point since you're doing what you're doing without knowing what you're doing you're doing what you're doing without knowing you're doing it.
Windshear Stormcaller is crying in a corner "WHY, oh why..."
I'm already playing my own version of Odd Mage just for fun, and in the few games I remember to keep track last night, it's quite easy to ping 4 times before turn 7.
At the absolute worst, it's easy to ping 3 times by turn 5 or 6, since a lot of games go T1 Fire Fly, T2 ping, T3 Flame Elemental + Ping/Black Cat, T4 Ping/Tar Creeper/Stonehill, T5 3-drop + Ping.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
I think this card will push odd mage to a tier 1 deck. I hope that it will be my free legendary ^_^
Devoid of creativity? Check.
Supports a boring archetype? Check .
Feeds Blizzard's obsession with Rag? Check.
Very bad, but strong, card.
Card type we've never seen before? Check.
Supports an archetype that hasn't seen mainstream play yet? Check
Nostalgia? Check