So priests main weakness are aggro decks which can kill Priest before let's say turn 8-10.
We don't know the new meta decks, so let's just put this card in todays control priest and tets it against an Odd Pally, for example. So Madame Lazul gets in our starting and takes a place of a Mass Hysteria, for example. So we play her on turn 3 and wow - we discover Argent SquireRaid Leader and Frostwolf Warlord oh my, who would have guessed Odd Pally plays those cards?! But will any of those will be for dying Priest. I really doubt. I would rather use a mass-removal which place was taken by Madame Lazul So in shorter words This card is a little better version of Chamelios. The info aspect is kind of irrelivant. And the steal effect isn't even that powerful as we have learned from Chameleos (even against control decks) I rate this card as Bad
Your example is so biased.
1) You wouldn't keep Lazul over Hysteria; that's just bad mulliganing. 2) You wouldn't play Lazul instead of 2x Hysteria; that's just bad deck building. 3) You can't play Hysteria on turn 3 anyway, so if you were mysteriously dead on turn 4, it didn't matter either way. 4) Odd Paly won't exist....soooooo.....irrelevant.
So priests main weakness are aggro decks which can kill Priest before let's say turn 8-10.
We don't know the new meta decks, so let's just put this card in todays control priest and tets it against an Odd Pally, for example. So Madame Lazul gets in our starting and takes a place of a Mass Hysteria, for example. So we play her on turn 3 and wow - we discover Argent SquireRaid Leader and Frostwolf Warlord oh my, who would have guessed Odd Pally plays those cards?! But will any of those will be for dying Priest. I really doubt. I would rather use a mass-removal which place was taken by Madame Lazul
First of all, Madam Lazul is not going to replace Mass Hysteria - you will still include AoEs in your deck. Let's say you run cards A, B and C and let's imagine for a second, that A and B are the aforementioned board wipes and C is Madame Lazul. If you draw her instead of a Hysteria spell, then this isn't going to be due to the fact that you use her in your deck, but because you draw the wrong card. If card C is something else (the pumpkin healing minion or power word: shield), then you are still going to draw the latter examples instead of the board wipe.
If you aren't satisfied with her playability and you want to use something else (like card cycle), in order to have a smoother game-plan against aggro decks, then this choice is meta dependent.
edit: If you've ever seen a Kripp stream, you know how valuable it is to know what's in your opponent's hand. This card is probably far stronger in Arena, but it's still pretty damned good in constructed.
That was the joke.
I initially made a really unproductive comment and then had to edit it. I agree with your assessment :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
edit: If you've ever seen a Kripp stream, you know how valuable it is to know what's in your opponent's hand. This card is probably far stronger in Arena, but it's still pretty damned good in constructed.
So priests main weakness are aggro decks which can kill Priest before let's say turn 8-10.
We don't know the new meta decks, so let's just put this card in todays control priest and tets it against an Odd Pally, for example. So Madame Lazul gets in our starting and takes a place of a Mass Hysteria, for example. So we play her on turn 3 and wow - we discover Argent SquireRaid Leader and Frostwolf Warlord oh my, who would have guessed Odd Pally plays those cards?! But will any of those will be for dying Priest. I really doubt. I would rather use a mass-removal which place was taken by Madame Lazul So in shorter words This card is a little better version of Chamelios. The info aspect is kind of irrelivant. And the steal effect isn't even that powerful as we have learned from Chameleos (even against control decks) I rate this card as Bad
You probably aren't just playing this willy nilly on turn 3 vs aggro. You're probably playing it on a turn in which you need to know if you should 'play around it' next turn. Play it on 3 and find out if they have Fungalmancer for turn 5 so you can make a more educated turn 4 for example. Or turn 4 to know if they have Ironbeak Owl in hand so you can make a more educated play with Zilliax on 5.
Knowing 3 cards in your opponents hand is more than three times as good as knowing 1.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
The question is what means Meta Defining. Cards that are autoincluded, or close to that, smell OP but must not define the deck. If the card is so good that priest moves to T1 due to it (like Rexxar ..) then i think it´s meta defining as well as if there is a metadeck constructed around the card.
I rate this card as very good but alone it does neither define a new deck, nor does it look like pushing priest to T1.
The question is what means Meta Defining. Cards that are autoincluded, or close to that, smell OP but must not define the deck. If the card is so good that priest moves to T1 due to it (like Rexxar ..) then i think it´s meta defining as well as if there is a metadeck constructed around the card.
I rate this card as very good but alone it does neither define a new deck, nor does it look like pushing priest to T1.
"meta defining" and "tier 1" aren't necessarily the same thing. For example, I would most definitely call Malygos a meta defining card, but no tier 1 deck currently uses it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
Magylos is meta defining. Decks are constructed around him :-).
Correct but there aren't any tier 1 Malygos decks currently (according to VS). Even if there was, I could find you more examples that illustrate the point that "tier 1" and "meta defining" aren't the same.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
The only thing I don't like about this card is that it's basically an auto-include in almost all Priest archetypes. The card is just standalone good in all matchups that are not pure aggro (where you're trying to stay alive, also their hand size is smaller quickly).
What I'm questining myself right now. Do you now have a small disadvantage with golden Cards 1 Time in your deck? If you have 1 Regular and one golden copy of Card X in your Hand, and Madam Lazul discovers only one of the two copies, and then you play the other (since you dont know which 3 cards your opponent discovers), now your opponent knows that you had two times the card on your hand.
Against aggro, you can see their next few turns and if they have 'burn' spells or minions. Not all aggro decks have the perfect draw and knowing what to play around and WHEN to use your board clears is very strong. Against a perfect aggro opening, no decks wins regardless of any cards in your hand, so that is a weak argument. The fact is you also get a low cost minion from them, which you can use to fight for board. Control Priest is not going to include a bunch of 1 and 2 drop minions to fight for the board. Control priest is going to let you build up a board and hopefully kill them all with a board clear spell.
Against control, this is amazing. You get information and possibly get a late game bomb you can use against them. You can also know what you need to play around in the next few turns. If you are playing against a Warrior, and you see a Brawl in their hand, you know not to play into it OR force them to play it by flooding the board. This card gives you a copy, so if its a good enough card, you have one and your opponent doesnt know which card YOU have.
Against combo, this is not as good, unless you have anti combo pieces in your deck already. It does allow you to know if they are close to finishing the game and may allow you to get more aggressive or try to disrupt them.
I think the reason I never liked Chameleos was because he could show you the same card over and over again. Also, even if you saw a card you liked, you were often never in a position to take advantage of it. Seeing the Lich King on turn 5 doesn't mean much if you cant get a copy for yourself.
Not only do you know they have the Lich King on turn 5, you get your own copy. And can play it anytime you want. You can even Seance it after you play it, getting another copy. Or using Seance on this card, allowing you to copy another card later on and get more information.
This card can be played on any turn and always provide a benefit, except when your opponent has no cards in hand. Then you are probably winning anyhow.
So priests main weakness are aggro decks which can kill Priest before let's say turn 8-10.
We don't know the new meta decks, so let's just put this card in todays control priest and tets it against an Odd Pally, for example. So Madame Lazul gets in our starting and takes a place of a Mass Hysteria, for example. So we play her on turn 3 and wow - we discover Argent SquireRaid Leader and Frostwolf Warlord oh my, who would have guessed Odd Pally plays those cards?! But will any of those will be for dying Priest. I really doubt. I would rather use a mass-removal which place was taken by Madame Lazul So in shorter words This card is a little better version of Chamelios. The info aspect is kind of irrelivant. And the steal effect isn't even that powerful as we have learned from Chameleos (even against control decks) I rate this card as Bad
I know late but thanks you finally some one with common sense, rather have anything else over this card. Yes it can be ok vs control but isn't worth it UNLESS it can win or BIG swing the game.
A normal vanilla 3/3 on turn 3 without effect is so damn weak vs aggro,hunter,rogue. This one is worse and the effect is irrelevant most of time, a "tech" card which isn't even good at it.
Hey guys, which one do you think is better Madame Lazul or Chameleos? I'm having hard time which one should I put into my deck. Chameleos looks better in long-term but Lazul has immediate effect. Any suggestions/ideas?
Your example is so biased.
1) You wouldn't keep Lazul over Hysteria; that's just bad mulliganing.
2) You wouldn't play Lazul instead of 2x Hysteria; that's just bad deck building.
3) You can't play Hysteria on turn 3 anyway, so if you were mysteriously dead on turn 4, it didn't matter either way.
4) Odd Paly won't exist....soooooo.....irrelevant.
So, in shorter words, your analysis is wrong.
First of all, Madam Lazul is not going to replace Mass Hysteria - you will still include AoEs in your deck. Let's say you run cards A, B and C and let's imagine for a second, that A and B are the aforementioned board wipes and C is Madame Lazul. If you draw her instead of a Hysteria spell, then this isn't going to be due to the fact that you use her in your deck, but because you draw the wrong card. If card C is something else (the pumpkin healing minion or power word: shield), then you are still going to draw the latter examples instead of the board wipe.
If you aren't satisfied with her playability and you want to use something else (like card cycle), in order to have a smoother game-plan against aggro decks, then this choice is meta dependent.
I initially made a really unproductive comment and then had to edit it. I agree with your assessment :)
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
Why is that a joke?
--Alfi--
You probably aren't just playing this willy nilly on turn 3 vs aggro. You're probably playing it on a turn in which you need to know if you should 'play around it' next turn. Play it on 3 and find out if they have Fungalmancer for turn 5 so you can make a more educated turn 4 for example. Or turn 4 to know if they have Ironbeak Owl in hand so you can make a more educated play with Zilliax on 5.
Knowing 3 cards in your opponents hand is more than three times as good as knowing 1.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
Calling this Madame Streamsnipe was the joke.
The question is what means Meta Defining. Cards that are autoincluded, or close to that, smell OP but must not define the deck. If the card is so good that priest moves to T1 due to it (like Rexxar ..) then i think it´s meta defining as well as if there is a metadeck constructed around the card.
I rate this card as very good but alone it does neither define a new deck, nor does it look like pushing priest to T1.
"meta defining" and "tier 1" aren't necessarily the same thing. For example, I would most definitely call Malygos a meta defining card, but no tier 1 deck currently uses it.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
Magylos is meta defining. Decks are constructed around him :-).
Correct but there aren't any tier 1 Malygos decks currently (according to VS). Even if there was, I could find you more examples that illustrate the point that "tier 1" and "meta defining" aren't the same.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
The only thing I don't like about this card is that it's basically an auto-include in almost all Priest archetypes. The card is just standalone good in all matchups that are not pure aggro (where you're trying to stay alive, also their hand size is smaller quickly).
Yours truly, but mine only.
The ability to see your opponent's hand is way overrated, but it's decent for the value.
I will craft this on day 1 :D
Where shall I start...
If you main priest this is a solid must craft :-).
What I'm questining myself right now. Do you now have a small disadvantage with golden Cards 1 Time in your deck? If you have 1 Regular and one golden copy of Card X in your Hand, and Madam Lazul discovers only one of the two copies, and then you play the other (since you dont know which 3 cards your opponent discovers), now your opponent knows that you had two times the card on your hand.
Why is this card good?
Against aggro, you can see their next few turns and if they have 'burn' spells or minions. Not all aggro decks have the perfect draw and knowing what to play around and WHEN to use your board clears is very strong. Against a perfect aggro opening, no decks wins regardless of any cards in your hand, so that is a weak argument. The fact is you also get a low cost minion from them, which you can use to fight for board. Control Priest is not going to include a bunch of 1 and 2 drop minions to fight for the board. Control priest is going to let you build up a board and hopefully kill them all with a board clear spell.
Against control, this is amazing. You get information and possibly get a late game bomb you can use against them. You can also know what you need to play around in the next few turns. If you are playing against a Warrior, and you see a Brawl in their hand, you know not to play into it OR force them to play it by flooding the board. This card gives you a copy, so if its a good enough card, you have one and your opponent doesnt know which card YOU have.
Against combo, this is not as good, unless you have anti combo pieces in your deck already. It does allow you to know if they are close to finishing the game and may allow you to get more aggressive or try to disrupt them.
I think the reason I never liked Chameleos was because he could show you the same card over and over again. Also, even if you saw a card you liked, you were often never in a position to take advantage of it. Seeing the Lich King on turn 5 doesn't mean much if you cant get a copy for yourself.
Not only do you know they have the Lich King on turn 5, you get your own copy. And can play it anytime you want. You can even Seance it after you play it, getting another copy. Or using Seance on this card, allowing you to copy another card later on and get more information.
This card can be played on any turn and always provide a benefit, except when your opponent has no cards in hand. Then you are probably winning anyhow.
Voted Meta-defining!
Reason you can see 3 Cards of the enemys hand and start thinking around it.
My current mage deck (wild,reno,otk,highlander)
My current hunter deck (wild,reno,highlander)
"The game is dead"
Every salty hearthstone player
I know late but thanks you finally some one with common sense, rather have anything else over this card. Yes it can be ok vs control but isn't worth it UNLESS it can win or BIG swing the game.
A normal vanilla 3/3 on turn 3 without effect is so damn weak vs aggro,hunter,rogue. This one is worse and the effect is irrelevant most of time, a "tech" card which isn't even good at it.
From what we have seen, aggro deck will be back.
Hey guys, which one do you think is better Madame Lazul or Chameleos? I'm having hard time which one should I put into my deck. Chameleos looks better in long-term but Lazul has immediate effect. Any suggestions/ideas?
Of course is a good card, you get a lot of intel and almost always a good card too... seens good
@andrededesk