⚙
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Instead of trying to fight this battle, I'll just say this:
Wild and Darnassus both become worse late game. So talking about which is better late game seems illogical.
Give a man a Murloc, and he'll eat for a day.
Give him a Murloc Knight, and people will hate him.
Actually that statement is 100% true. A spell that costs 0 and draws a card would be played in almost every deck.
Zombie Chow is a 1 mana minion . . . .
Every deck? I wouldn't play it in handlock. But I suck at this game sooooo...
I see where you're going. But the problem I was originally referring to is that, in super-late-game, Wild Growth actual becomes 2 mana draw a card.
Is that worth running in a deck? Assuming most 2 mana draw effects have an extra effect, I'd argue.
Give a man a Murloc, and he'll eat for a day.
Give him a Murloc Knight, and people will hate him.
Yup and this card becomes a River Crocolisk, if I was at turn 10 with just a Crocolisk in my hand in know what my play would be . . . .
Hint: it doesn't involve playing any cards.
I wasn't really replying to your argument, but I can still answer your question. Wild growth's effect in the early game that puts you ahead of your opponent makes it worth playing, if there was no drawback then it would be super OP (the drawback being that late game it is a 2 mana draw card). It is a pretty bad top deck late game, but this card would be as well. I don't see why people are trying to compare and contrast these two cards to decide which is better because I think if this card is played it will be played in a deck that also runs wild growths so you won't have to choose between the two.
Wild Growth is never a bad card, and because you can't get more than 10 crystals mana, designers let it draw a card so that it wouldn't be useless at that point in the game. And i agree with the guy who said that a 0 mana cost card that let you draw a card would be played in almost every deck, sometimes you have to include cards in your deck just to fill the 30 needed.
Zombie Chow beign better than this card at controlling the board early game is very obvious, it is the ultimate neutral cheap control card for god sake, but that doesn't make Darnassus Aspirant a bad card for the same purpose. It is a 2/3 card that has an invisible taunt for early game and is very good if the opponent can't deal with it fast (wich is something that some very good cards that are used in the meta and are competitive share), and that makes it a very good card. If you don't see the potential of this card, I feel bad for you. I'm almost crying. I'm so sad... Bye.
No it wouldn't. That's one more answer taken out of your control deck.
I agree that there are some decks that would love it for the spell synergy, but I would guess that most decks would NOT run it as it replaces an answer, a win condition, or som other key card. Deck slots are too tight to believe a card waste on cycling would be pounced on.
Spend some time and look up why Far Sight is a bad card, get back to me.
The thing is, Far Sight and Flare cost mana to cycle, meaning you lose tempo and if you can't play them, you have one less option in your hand.
A 0-mana draw a card spell instantly replaces itself. It's not even "it would replace a better card" in deck construction. It effectively would reduce your deck size down from 30 to 28 with no consequences. And while you may lose certain mana-slot cards or certain answers, the upside of allowing you to more quickly draw your other answers or cards (your better answers too mind you, since you'd be replacing your weakest cards) means there'd be absolutely no reason not to run it.
I suppose that's not fair. If you want to defend Far Sight as a card that everyone should be running that can, please explain.
Well except in cases where you absolutely need your other answers and now you don't have them. Albeit that scenario is rather rare, like in a case where you are down to only a few cards in deck and are running the chance of running out of cards. Like I said, my handlock is full and has no real room to replace things, but there are plenty of other decks, combo decks specifically I would run two of these. Anything that helps me draw into my ridiculous OTK is good in those decks.
Far sight is a bad card for several reasons, none of which have anything to do with drawing through your deck too quickly. If you have played any other card game ever you would know why a 0 mana draw card would be played by almost every deck. It would make your deck smaller so you would go into fatigue quicker in Hearthstone, but the added consistency would give you a big advantage and less games would go to fatigue. Every deck has win conditions, and if you don't draw them it makes it harder to win. Anything that helps you draw your win condition more consistently when you need it is going to see a lot of play.
You're treating mana costs as insubstantial is the thing.
Far Sight is bad because it costs 3-mana. This means you have to spend 3-mana on one your turns to play it. 3-mana that could be better spent playing a minion or answering something on the board. Even with the reduction effect, the card you draw is still random and might not be one you want to play that turn, meaning the turn is still wasted.
But the even bigger issue is if you CAN'T afford to spend the 3-mana to cycle. If you have to spend your mana answering the board or establishing board presence. Now the card is dead weight. If it was another card it would be another option, and a potentially better answer or card to play than what you'd play instead of Far Sight.
A (0) mana draw a card has NONE of these problems. You can play it the instant you get it, no mana wasted. It would never be dead weight, since it always instantly replaces itself with another card from your deck (Far Sight's reduction effect means you practically have to play the card that turn to not waste the mana; you could hold onto the card drawn from this hypothetical card). Smaller decks are generally seen as better, and this card would turn every deck into a 28 card deck.
Well unless you are out of cards then it becomes a 0 mana deal damage to yourself, then again that makes farsight 3 mana deal damage to yourself lol.
I understand deck thinning but you are placing way too much value on it.
Lol. You actually can make an argument to be made that while less cards in a deck is generally seen as better, even if they allowed any number of cards in a deck you'd probably run more than say 5. But that's sort of more about the deck limit than whether or not Far Sight is a good card. And like you said less cards would def. benefit aggro and combo decks more than decks that try to last awhile. Everything would probably speed up (to use your warlock as an example, while yeah you need all your answers now, it's possible you might not need some of them if you were able to more consistently draw into your big hitters, since you'd either close out the match faster or have a much better chance of having an answer on the field). And high-mana cards would probably be worse as deck size shrinks. Ugh. It'd be... weird, needless to say.
Wild Growth costs 2 mana not 0. The spinning off to the tangent was partly my fault. 2 mana for 1 card draw is insanely bad. You'd much rather have a River Croc than toss the mana away late game, but turns 5,6,7 is where this card shines over Wild Growth as it fights for board control and the momentary benefits is not near as throw away in tempo as a Wild Growth would be.
I actually find this card fascinating. I am going to make a stupid ramp deck that does nothing with this and youthful brew masters and wild growths and nourish, it'll be gloriously bad, but for at least 4-5 turns they will be like "oh shit something huge and nasty is coming".