This card is insane value, works in Wild with Even Shaman AND gives you value with Hagatha because you get another minion.
This card coined out on turn 1 will give the Shaman player such a huge advantage that if the opponent doesnt have a weapon or rush minion, the game could be over because you will be able to have easy tempo plays for 1 mana.
If you ever get more than 1 lackey, this card will win you the game.
Decent card, and it's nice that Shaman finally gets a new totem. Might even end up in Even Shaman: Another Totem for Thing from Below, and Lackeys can help a lot with tempo as we've seen with Rogue.
But something about it seems... I don't know, something doesn't fit here. Hey Team5, what did you have to say about Shaman's class identity again?
Weaknesses: Card draw, card generation
Nevermind.
You realize that class identity is only for the classic and basic set, don't you? They can print card that do whatever they want as expansion ones.
I don't know what makes you think that, but it can't be that the official blogpost I'm referring to. If you think I'm making any of this up, feel free to read the blogpost yourself: https://playhearthstone.com/en-us/blog/23014810/
To quote, the list of strengths and weaknesses is "to outline our current class identity philosophy and to share our thoughts on where we see each class in the future" and is supposed to give a look at "how we currently picture each of the classes" (emphasis by me). There is no mentioning of this being limited to the core set whatsoever.
Defining the class identity is supposed to establish "a class’s “fantasy”, define the things the class should excel at, and establish where the class should struggle" and the designers want to stay true to these outlines to "push further into the extremes knowing that each class has downsides to balance out new power". In other words, not only is it not limited to the core sets, it is actually supposed to be a guideline for future expansions to improve balancing: Improve the strenghts, but stay true to the weaknesses. To say the least, it certainly does not say anywhere, at all, that they could "do whatever they want" with expansions, as you say.
But even IF the list was only meant to describe the core set, with no meaning for past, current and future design at all, the list would make even less sense than it already does. Let me give you a few examples:
In Druid's strenghts you will find "Beasts". Druid's core set has two beasts: The Panther from Power of the Wild, and the transformations from Druid of the Claw. Besides these two minions that happen to be beasts (not even very good ones), not a single card in Druid's core set benefits directly or indirectly from playing beasts.
Among Priest's strenghts, you will find "Deathrattle". Again, there is not a single effect in Priest's core set that directly or indirectly benefits from Deahtrattles, and there is not a single Priest minion in the core set with a Deathrattle. Same goes for Rogue, also a class that is supposedly strongh with Deathrattles, despite having no minions or cards in the core set with any deathrattle effect. In case of Rogue's core set it would make even less sense because of Shadowstep.
To give you a counterexample: Shaman's core set has more to do with Deathrattles than Priest's or Rogue's thanks to Ancestral Spirit, a card that would allow you to get additional value out of Deathrattle minions since you'd get the effect twice.
In Warrior's strengths, you will find "Taunt". Once again, they have no minions in their core set with Taunt, no spell that gives or improves Taunt, and at most Armorsmith that somewhat synergizes with Taunt. At best, you could say that Warrior's defensive playstyle suggests using minons with Taunt, but that is, in my opinion at least, not really a class trait.
Counterexample: Warlock's core set is also strong with a defensive playstyle, and that class actually does have three class minions in the core set with Taunt. Druid has three minions with Taunt, it's original class legendary summons tokens with Taunt, and they have a spell that gives a minion Taunt. Why isn't Taunt a strength of Druid then? I don't know. Probably because their only playstyle defining card with Taunt synergy was Hadronox; more like an experiment than an ongoing theme they see in the class.
Sure, if the list is not referring to the Classic and Basic set, you could legitimately ask why Warrior's strength doesn't feature Rush, or why Rogue is not seen as strong with Battlecries. I assume the list isn't meant to be complete, just a few things that they came up with to give a general idea of how they view classes. But if these traits were only meant to define the classes in their Classic and Basic set, many parts of it wouldn't make sense.
Thus, pointing out that EVIL Totem doesn't line up with Shaman's class identity that Team5 had just presented to us and maing fun of it is, in my humble opinion, perfectly justified.
I don't know how much time they've spend on writing that blogpost, or how much they discussed these things internally. And maybe, this list of strengths and weaknesses is relatively new, and pointing out inconsistencies in older sets or even the latest expansion might be a bit inadequate. But if the very next expansion they knew they would announce just a few days later, and one of the first cards they were going to reveal is another obvious example of their class identity defintion not making much sense, that is perfect timing, and I feel invited to make fun of it.
It's obvious why they don't stick to their 9 different "class identities" they all severely limit design space in the long run. That is why they don't stay within that design space, meanwhile, all you Goobers are here jerking each other off with your best Milton from Office Space impersonation going on about contradictions. Or if you don't like that analogy everyone that complains about class identity remind me of Warren from There's Something About Mary... Have You Seen My Wiener?
I don't know how much time they've spend on writing that blogpost, or how much they discussed these things internally. And maybe, this list of strengths and weaknesses is relatively new, and pointing out inconsistencies in older sets or even the latest expansion might be a bit inadequate. But if the very next expansion they knew they would announce just a few days later, and one of the first cards they were going to reveal is another obvious example of their class identity defintion not making much sense, that is perfect timing, and I feel invited to make fun of it.
First, thanks a million for your detailed, logical post. You saved me a whole lot of time and effort.
As to the dev blog, I think it was an extremely sloppy, half-assed attempt to justify changes that were going to bother certain people no matter what. They clearly haven't really settled on how they actually intend to approach class identity moving forward -- or if they have, this vague justification was even more wildly premature than it seemed, considering they haven't made nearly enough adjustments to the evergreens to fit this list.
Me, I'm not mad about the changes - not even a little bit. But I am sorely vexed by the class identity list itself. So many of these items are either contradictory with the existing evergreen cards, or they are utterly false in terms of what they purport to be. How is any part of the Warrior weakness list actually a weakness, given the rest of the class kit? You can tell they struggled mightily to come up with even that much because the truth is that the Warrior class lacks any legitimate weaknesses, apart from a garbage Hero Power that they must constantly upgrade or replace in order to make the class viable.
Bringing it back to Shaman, though ... this card does speak to two of the class's strengths, so I'm not too upset that they are contradicting one of the weaknesses at the same time.
My rant here is mainly a way of pointing out that I don't think they've given as much thought to the identities as they want us to think they have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Class identities is a whole different animal, but I don't want a game that defines classes loosely and applies restrictions whenever it feels like it.
It is ok to break the rules once in awhile to see what happens or change the direction of a class.
But what is the point of clearly defined classes, then to NOT adhere to some sort of self imposed guidelines.
The community NEVER defined these classes or restrictions. The blizzard and HS did that. And it doesnt ruin or restrict design space, it should help you find new ways of doing things.
For example, if you define a class to be bad at drawing cards, but then simply give them a card draw effect. That is terrible design. IF instead you decide to make the card draw optional based on the class strengths, that is far superior design.
This card breaks the mold once again that Shaman is not good at card generation. If you keep breaking the same rules and guidelines, it's no longer a weakness but becomes a staple in the class.
If that becomes a normal thing, then remove all the classes entirely, because why bother?
I would rather know that when I play Priest, I do not have an aggro deck. The hero power doesnt support it. The classic and basic cards dont support it. And THAT is a good thing. It means that when you look at the Priest cards, you know immediately what they are about or NOT about.
So, yeah, this card is good. It makes Even shaman even better. This card is bonkers.
Decent card, and it's nice that Shaman finally gets a new totem. Might even end up in Even Shaman: Another Totem for Thing from Below, and Lackeys can help a lot with tempo as we've seen with Rogue.
But something about it seems... I don't know, something doesn't fit here. Hey Team5, what did you have to say about Shaman's class identity again?
Weaknesses: Card draw, card generation
Nevermind.
You realize that class identity is only for the classic and basic set, don't you? They can print card that do whatever they want as expansion ones.
I don't know what makes you think that, but it can't be that the official blogpost I'm referring to. If you think I'm making any of this up, feel free to read the blogpost yourself: https://playhearthstone.com/en-us/blog/23014810/
To quote, the list of strengths and weaknesses is "to outline our current class identity philosophy and to share our thoughts on where we see each class in the future" and is supposed to give a look at "how we currently picture each of the classes" (emphasis by me). There is no mentioning of this being limited to the core set whatsoever.
Defining the class identity is supposed to establish "a class’s “fantasy”, define the things the class should excel at, and establish where the class should struggle" and the designers want to stay true to these outlines to "push further into the extremes knowing that each class has downsides to balance out new power". In other words, not only is it not limited to the core sets, it is actually supposed to be a guideline for future expansions to improve balancing: Improve the strenghts, but stay true to the weaknesses. To say the least, it certainly does not say anywhere, at all, that they could "do whatever they want" with expansions, as you say.
But even IF the list was only meant to describe the core set, with no meaning for past, current and future design at all, the list would make even less sense than it already does. Let me give you a few examples:
In Druid's strenghts you will find "Beasts". Druid's core set has two beasts: The Panther from Power of the Wild, and the transformations from Druid of the Claw. Besides these two minions that happen to be beasts (not even very good ones), not a single card in Druid's core set benefits directly or indirectly from playing beasts.
Among Priest's strenghts, you will find "Deathrattle". Again, there is not a single effect in Priest's core set that directly or indirectly benefits from Deahtrattles, and there is not a single Priest minion in the core set with a Deathrattle. Same goes for Rogue, also a class that is supposedly strongh with Deathrattles, despite having no minions or cards in the core set with any deathrattle effect. In case of Rogue's core set it would make even less sense because of Shadowstep.
To give you a counterexample: Shaman's core set has more to do with Deathrattles than Priest's or Rogue's thanks to Ancestral Spirit, a card that would allow you to get additional value out of Deathrattle minions since you'd get the effect twice.
In Warrior's strengths, you will find "Taunt". Once again, they have no minions in their core set with Taunt, no spell that gives or improves Taunt, and at most Armorsmith that somewhat synergizes with Taunt. At best, you could say that Warrior's defensive playstyle suggests using minons with Taunt, but that is, in my opinion at least, not really a class trait.
Counterexample: Warlock's core set is also strong with a defensive playstyle, and that class actually does have three class minions in the core set with Taunt. Druid has three minions with Taunt, it's original class legendary summons tokens with Taunt, and they have a spell that gives a minion Taunt. Why isn't Taunt a strength of Druid then? I don't know. Probably because their only playstyle defining card with Taunt synergy was Hadronox; more like an experiment than an ongoing theme they see in the class.
Sure, if the list is not referring to the Classic and Basic set, you could legitimately ask why Warrior's strength doesn't feature Rush, or why Rogue is not seen as strong with Battlecries. I assume the list isn't meant to be complete, just a few things that they came up with to give a general idea of how they view classes. But if these traits were only meant to define the classes in their Classic and Basic set, many parts of it wouldn't make sense.
Thus, pointing out that EVIL Totem doesn't line up with Shaman's class identity that Team5 had just presented to us and maing fun of it is, in my humble opinion, perfectly justified.
I don't know how much time they've spend on writing that blogpost, or how much they discussed these things internally. And maybe, this list of strengths and weaknesses is relatively new, and pointing out inconsistencies in older sets or even the latest expansion might be a bit inadequate. But if the very next expansion they knew they would announce just a few days later, and one of the first cards they were going to reveal is another obvious example of their class identity defintion not making much sense, that is perfect timing, and I feel invited to make fun of it.
Well i remember someone from the staff referring to that, but i could be wrong. And the problem with the core set is always that there is no clear philisophy behind the choices made for each deck. You are definitely right about these strange class-identity inclusions for some classses.
But at least they are trying to achieve that in the future:
Headed into our next update, we’d like to take this opportunity to outline our current class identity philosophy and to share our thoughts on where we see each class in the future.
On turn 6 with Splitting Axe it can be a nice combo for some value but I don't feel this is auto-include in Shaman decks except for aggro-token ones with Totemic Surge too.
This card is insane value, works in Wild with Even Shaman AND gives you value with Hagatha because you get another minion.
This card coined out on turn 1 will give the Shaman player such a huge advantage that if the opponent doesnt have a weapon or rush minion, the game could be over because you will be able to have easy tempo plays for 1 mana.
If you ever get more than 1 lackey, this card will win you the game.
I don't know what makes you think that, but it can't be that the official blogpost I'm referring to. If you think I'm making any of this up, feel free to read the blogpost yourself: https://playhearthstone.com/en-us/blog/23014810/
To quote, the list of strengths and weaknesses is "to outline our current class identity philosophy and to share our thoughts on where we see each class in the future" and is supposed to give a look at "how we currently picture each of the classes" (emphasis by me). There is no mentioning of this being limited to the core set whatsoever.
Defining the class identity is supposed to establish "a class’s “fantasy”, define the things the class should excel at, and establish where the class should struggle" and the designers want to stay true to these outlines to "push further into the extremes knowing that each class has downsides to balance out new power". In other words, not only is it not limited to the core sets, it is actually supposed to be a guideline for future expansions to improve balancing: Improve the strenghts, but stay true to the weaknesses. To say the least, it certainly does not say anywhere, at all, that they could "do whatever they want" with expansions, as you say.
But even IF the list was only meant to describe the core set, with no meaning for past, current and future design at all, the list would make even less sense than it already does. Let me give you a few examples:
In Druid's strenghts you will find "Beasts". Druid's core set has two beasts: The Panther from Power of the Wild, and the transformations from Druid of the Claw. Besides these two minions that happen to be beasts (not even very good ones), not a single card in Druid's core set benefits directly or indirectly from playing beasts.
Among Priest's strenghts, you will find "Deathrattle". Again, there is not a single effect in Priest's core set that directly or indirectly benefits from Deahtrattles, and there is not a single Priest minion in the core set with a Deathrattle. Same goes for Rogue, also a class that is supposedly strongh with Deathrattles, despite having no minions or cards in the core set with any deathrattle effect. In case of Rogue's core set it would make even less sense because of Shadowstep.
To give you a counterexample: Shaman's core set has more to do with Deathrattles than Priest's or Rogue's thanks to Ancestral Spirit, a card that would allow you to get additional value out of Deathrattle minions since you'd get the effect twice.
In Warrior's strengths, you will find "Taunt". Once again, they have no minions in their core set with Taunt, no spell that gives or improves Taunt, and at most Armorsmith that somewhat synergizes with Taunt. At best, you could say that Warrior's defensive playstyle suggests using minons with Taunt, but that is, in my opinion at least, not really a class trait.
Counterexample: Warlock's core set is also strong with a defensive playstyle, and that class actually does have three class minions in the core set with Taunt. Druid has three minions with Taunt, it's original class legendary summons tokens with Taunt, and they have a spell that gives a minion Taunt. Why isn't Taunt a strength of Druid then? I don't know. Probably because their only playstyle defining card with Taunt synergy was Hadronox; more like an experiment than an ongoing theme they see in the class.
All these examples ONLY make sense with iconic expansion cards new and old, and are obviously not descriptive of the core set. Druid's Beast strength lies in cards like Menagerie Warden or Stampeding Roar, Priest's Deathrattle theme comes from cards like Museum Curator, Awaken the Makers, Coffin Crasher or Shadowy Figure, Rogue's Deahtrattle theme comes from stuff like Journey Below, Necrium Vial, Necrium Blade and Gral, the Shark and Warrior's Taunt theme is shown in cards like King's Defender, Sparring Partner, Bolster, I Know a Guy, and Fire Plume's Heart.
Sure, if the list is not referring to the Classic and Basic set, you could legitimately ask why Warrior's strength doesn't feature Rush, or why Rogue is not seen as strong with Battlecries. I assume the list isn't meant to be complete, just a few things that they came up with to give a general idea of how they view classes. But if these traits were only meant to define the classes in their Classic and Basic set, many parts of it wouldn't make sense.
Thus, pointing out that EVIL Totem doesn't line up with Shaman's class identity that Team5 had just presented to us and maing fun of it is, in my humble opinion, perfectly justified.
I don't know how much time they've spend on writing that blogpost, or how much they discussed these things internally. And maybe, this list of strengths and weaknesses is relatively new, and pointing out inconsistencies in older sets or even the latest expansion might be a bit inadequate. But if the very next expansion they knew they would announce just a few days later, and one of the first cards they were going to reveal is another obvious example of their class identity defintion not making much sense, that is perfect timing, and I feel invited to make fun of it.
It's obvious why they don't stick to their 9 different "class identities" they all severely limit design space in the long run. That is why they don't stay within that design space, meanwhile, all you Goobers are here jerking each other off with your best Milton from Office Space impersonation going on about contradictions. Or if you don't like that analogy everyone that complains about class identity remind me of Warren from There's Something About Mary... Have You Seen My Wiener?
First, thanks a million for your detailed, logical post. You saved me a whole lot of time and effort.
As to the dev blog, I think it was an extremely sloppy, half-assed attempt to justify changes that were going to bother certain people no matter what. They clearly haven't really settled on how they actually intend to approach class identity moving forward -- or if they have, this vague justification was even more wildly premature than it seemed, considering they haven't made nearly enough adjustments to the evergreens to fit this list.
Me, I'm not mad about the changes - not even a little bit. But I am sorely vexed by the class identity list itself. So many of these items are either contradictory with the existing evergreen cards, or they are utterly false in terms of what they purport to be. How is any part of the Warrior weakness list actually a weakness, given the rest of the class kit? You can tell they struggled mightily to come up with even that much because the truth is that the Warrior class lacks any legitimate weaknesses, apart from a garbage Hero Power that they must constantly upgrade or replace in order to make the class viable.
Bringing it back to Shaman, though ... this card does speak to two of the class's strengths, so I'm not too upset that they are contradicting one of the weaknesses at the same time.
My rant here is mainly a way of pointing out that I don't think they've given as much thought to the identities as they want us to think they have.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Class identities is a whole different animal, but I don't want a game that defines classes loosely and applies restrictions whenever it feels like it.
It is ok to break the rules once in awhile to see what happens or change the direction of a class.
But what is the point of clearly defined classes, then to NOT adhere to some sort of self imposed guidelines.
The community NEVER defined these classes or restrictions. The blizzard and HS did that. And it doesnt ruin or restrict design space, it should help you find new ways of doing things.
For example, if you define a class to be bad at drawing cards, but then simply give them a card draw effect. That is terrible design. IF instead you decide to make the card draw optional based on the class strengths, that is far superior design.
This card breaks the mold once again that Shaman is not good at card generation. If you keep breaking the same rules and guidelines, it's no longer a weakness but becomes a staple in the class.
If that becomes a normal thing, then remove all the classes entirely, because why bother?
I would rather know that when I play Priest, I do not have an aggro deck. The hero power doesnt support it. The classic and basic cards dont support it. And THAT is a good thing. It means that when you look at the Priest cards, you know immediately what they are about or NOT about.
So, yeah, this card is good. It makes Even shaman even better. This card is bonkers.
Well i remember someone from the staff referring to that, but i could be wrong. And the problem with the core set is always that there is no clear philisophy behind the choices made for each deck. You are definitely right about these strange class-identity inclusions for some classses.
But at least they are trying to achieve that in the future:
Always expect the unexpectable!
better than cable rat which isn't dreadful.
Carpe Diem - Seize the day
Would you run this over EVIL Cable Rat in battlecry Corrupt the Waters Shaman? Or even in Shudderwock Shaman?
On turn 6 with Splitting Axe it can be a nice combo for some value but I don't feel this is auto-include in Shaman decks except for aggro-token ones with Totemic Surge too.