Hearthpwn

Does it apply just to the invoke keyword (Like you don't get heropower effect) or does it also apply to the "if you invoked twice do something" cards. Like an example: If you play Corrupt Elementalist from your hand without Galakrond, the Tempest just to make your Dragon's Pack buffed (without Galakrond's Fury's effect of course) would this work? Or does the battlecry just don't work at all?

I think that Blizzard wording is way to vague in that case, and it can go either way tbh.

Quote from suchti352 >>

Quote from shmeuraconda >>

wait dumb question maybe but what if a class steals your galakrond through deck switching shenanigans etc.?

 Did you even tryed looking for an answer?

It's literally 3 replies above yours:

The first Galakrond you gain control of, either in your hand or deck, becomes your “main Galakrond”. Usually this is the Galakrond you included in your deck, but it can also be one you stole from your opponent or received through some other crazy shenanigans. This means any Invoke cards will upgrade this Galakrond and trigger its Hero Power effect. Note that, like Quests, cards with the Invoke keyword and the five collectible Galakrond cards cannot be generated by random effects, such a Discover.

 this only talks about when you steal a galakrond

if yours gets stolen then your invoke cards won’t work be ca use you no longer control galakrond?

Quote from Adusak90 >>

Does it apply just to the invoke keyword (Like you don't get heropower effect) or does it also apply to the "if you invoked twice do something" cards. Like an example: If you play Corrupt Elementalist from your hand without Galakrond, the Tempest just to make your Dragon's Pack buffed would this work? Or does the battlecry just don't work at all?

I think that Blizzard wording is way to vague in that case, and it can go either way tbh.

 That's a good question, I hadn't even considered that. My guess is if an invoke action isn't valid (meaning no Galakrond in your deck list when the match starts to activate its effect) it's not counted toward cards that gets buffs or activation through invoke. If you get a Galakrond and then invoke (such as Rogue could do with cards like Academic Espionage), then there's no reason I can think of for invoke to fail at activating a secondary effect on a card like Dragon's Pack.

Quote from Adusak90 >>

Does it apply just to the invoke keyword (Like you don't get heropower effect) or does it also apply to the "if you invoked twice do something" cards. Like an example: If you play Corrupt Elementalist from your hand without Galakrond, the Tempest just to make your Dragon's Pack buffed (without Galakrond's Fury's effect of course) would this work? Or does the battlecry just don't work at all?

I think that Blizzard wording is way to vague in that case, and it can go either way tbh.

Is this referring to a scenario where Galakrond no longer is present in either your Hero, deck or hand? As in, it was burned, stolen or something else? Because if not, I don't quite understand the need to run Invoke-cards without running Galakrond himself. If he was burned, and no longer can be Invoked, my guess is that the game checks for Galakrond, before Invoking. So no, in that case.

No, I'm asking about scenario where you put invoke cards and the upgraded cards by it without Galakrond itself. Good example would be the Scion of Ruin being good card overall without and the Galakrond, the Unbreakable is just a burden because the hero card doesn't seem as good (at least in wild, that's why I even stated this question).

So the question is, if you run an invoke deck without Galakrond, does the invoke actually upgrade non-Galakrond invoke syneristic cards or the entire thing crumbles (Not talking about the hero power effect being played because that was an obvious no from Blizzard).

Wtf is wrong with this Community. OP asks a legit question and every second reply is insulting. 

Lol get a life people. 

I understand perfectly how Galakrond works and I wanted an answer to the same question (I’ll explain why). To everyone reacting with ridicule and implying or stating how stupid and obvious the question is, I think it is you who hasn’t thought enough about the question, not OP.

I’ve come up with a really cool and fun (at least I think it is) priest Shadowform OTK deck which requires Fate Weaver to discount all four of your combo pieces to make them collectively cost 10 mana i.e. playable as an OTK. I therefore need to play at least two invoke cards to be able to activate Fate Weaver’s effect.

I am currently running Galakrond, perhaps obviously, because the battlecry is quite powerful, but I am wanting to refine the list and feel that a) it desperately needs more card draw, and b) Galakrond is actually one of the most “cuttable” cards because it’s not a combo piece, is expensive, it doesn’t draw cards, and it creates some awkwardness because the OTK requires the shadowform hero power, so you can’t play Galakrond (which obviously replaces your hero power) if you have already played shadowform beforehand. On the other hand, it is incredibly cool to play shadowform after playing Galakrond, so that you can OTK as Shadowform Galakrond(!)

My point is that I don’t care about and perhaps would even like not having to run Galakrond; I only run invoke cards to activate Fate Weaver.

All of the answers I’ve read specifically say that you don’t get the benefit of the invoke EFFECT if you’re not running Galakrond. This misses the point slightly: I don’t care about the effect (upgrading Galakrond and getting the result of one Galakrond hero power). I only care about the actual counter of “number of times invoked”, regardless of whether or not an effect was achieved by those invocations.

I think it’s probably the case that the game DOESN’T register you as having invoked once if you play an invoke card with no Galakrond in deck, but I can’t be sure of this (I tried to test it but haven’t had much time and so I haven’t yet got to actually perform the test in a game). It’s not impossible for it to be that the game counts “number of times an invoke card was played” as opposed to “number of times an invoke effect was produced” for the purposes of activating cards like Fate Weaver.

THAT’S why I wanted to ask the same question, and why I still need to test the interaction despite the “correct answer” being “obvious”.

(sorry for the essay)

Quote from Arachnidius >>

I understand perfectly how Galakrond works and I wanted an answer to the same question (I’ll explain why). To everyone reacting with ridicule and implying or stating how stupid and obvious the question is, I think it is you who hasn’t thought enough about the question, not OP.

I’ve come up with a really cool and fun (at least I think it is) priest Shadowform OTK deck which requires Fate Weaver to discount all four of your combo pieces to make them collectively cost 10 mana i.e. playable as an OTK. I therefore need to play at least two invoke cards to be able to activate Fate Weaver’s effect.

I am currently running Galakrond, perhaps obviously, because the battlecry is quite powerful, but I am wanting to refine the list and feel that a) it desperately needs more card draw, and b) Galakrond is actually one of the most “cuttable” cards because it’s not a combo piece, is expensive, it doesn’t draw cards, and it creates some awkwardness because the OTK requires the shadowform hero power, so you can’t play Galakrond (which obviously replaces your hero power) if you have already played shadowform beforehand. On the other hand, it is incredibly cool to play shadowform after playing Galakrond, so that you can OTK as Shadowform Galakrond(!)

My point is that I don’t care about and perhaps would even like not having to run Galakrond; I only run invoke cards to activate Fate Weaver.

All of the answers I’ve read specifically say that you don’t get the benefit of the invoke EFFECT if you’re not running Galakrond. This misses the point slightly: I don’t care about the effect (upgrading Galakrond and getting the result of one Galakrond hero power). I only care about the actual counter of “number of times invoked”, regardless of whether or not an effect was achieved by those invocations.

I think it’s probably the case that the game DOESN’T register you as having invoked once if you play an invoke card with no Galakrond in deck, but I can’t be sure of this (I tried to test it but haven’t had much time and so I haven’t yet got to actually perform the test in a game). It’s not impossible for it to be that the game counts “number of times an invoke card was played” as opposed to “number of times an invoke effect was produced” for the purposes of activating cards like Fate Weaver.

THAT’S why I wanted to ask the same question, and why I still need to test the interaction despite the “correct answer” being “obvious”.

(sorry for the essay)

 Appreciate the effort in explaining! You can assume all day but without clarification or seeing it play out, it's just an assumption (right or wrong) until proven.

There is one exception, where Invocations work with no Galakrond in hand, deck or board.

If you discard your Galakrond as a Warlock, then invoke you still get imps. If however you get a new Galakrond off of a card like Soulwarden or Expired Merchant then not only is your Galakrond not upgraded by those Invocations, but if he was at, for example, 3/4 he will revert to 2/4, as he is considered a new card, not the original.