Hearthpwn

Quote from kingius jump

So you would have taken out a wrath for this guy?

I definitely would not do that. Wrath is too useful. But it's what is probably in a Druid's hand that he can play at that point in time (assuming something is on the board), sometimes played just to cycle cards when you have a bad hand (1 damage, draw a card).

I don't think you understand, you can only have the card in your hand that this card replaced, that's what I'm trying to say. In this scenario your two wraths are in the deck, and the only card that could be in place of this is the card you took out for this. If the person would have wrath in their hypothetical hand hand of 4+drops instead of this guy, then that means they had to have taken wrath out to put this guy in. I would never take out wrath, I would have taken out something else like possibly zombie chow.

Quote from dplWILDY jump

Secondly them killing it is the whole point. You can then wild growth and all is right with the world, and they still havent played their lategame preps. Plus you have gone even further into the lategame than just a t2 wild growth, as you land on 5 mana.

So what your saying is, You are going to play a 2 mana card so it can die then play another 2 mana card that has the same effect the other card "could've" had but didn't because its dead.

Quote from kingius jump

It's definitely worse than wild growth! You play Wild Growth to get a permanent ramp up towards the high cost of Druid cards. You do not play an average minionto temporarily gain a boost only to have it taken away later (probably one turn later) because that will not allow you to ramp up. Wild Growth is useful late game as well by providing another card draw. There's no way I'd switch out Wild Growth from a Druid deck for this or even put it in alongside it. It's just too easy to remove. I'm begininng to think that those arguing for this want to see weak Druids.

Worse than Wild Growth does not a bad card make. You don't replace Wild Growth, you play it along it, if it dies, so what? You baited out some removal. I play only Warrior and Druid (latter with the most games easily) so I by no means want to see weak Druids. This is a genuinely strong card.

Quote from kingius jump

I think we're talking cross purpose here. I wouldn't remove wrath or wild growth from a Druid deck to put this in. Consider, if you are building a ramp deck, why risk a temporary ramp? Remember there are only 30 cards you can put in a deck. So what Druid cards would you remove for it? It's a tough question because I don't rate this card at all.

I would take out zombie chow personally.  Imagine that in your scenario.  Would you rather have zombie chow and a bunch of 4+ drops in your hand or this guy and the 4+ drops in your hand?  If the opponent can't remove this card then you are golden and can play your high drops quicker, if they can then are you in worse shape than you would have been with the zombie chow? Obviously every situation will be different depending on the variables in play at the time, but in this exact situation I would rather have this than zombie chow.

I wouldn't remove wrath or wild growth either, you can run both and this card, they are not mutually exclusive.

Quote from kingius jump

Ok, so if you have both wraths in the deck in your scenario then how could they be in your hand INSTEAD of this guy, would you somehow be running 3 of them?  In your hypothetical situation you took something out for this guy and that card would be in your hand instead of this guy. I'm asking what better play would you have on turn 2-3 that you would have without him in the deck and with the card you took out to put this in.

I think we're talking cross purpose here. I wouldn't remove wrath or wild growth from a Druid deck to put this in. Consider, if you are building a ramp deck, why risk a temporary ramp? Remember there are only 30 cards you can put in a deck. So what Druid cards would you remove for it? It's a tough question because I don't rate this card at all.

For me, it is Zombie Chow, like a lot of people already said.

What a tough decision, tought about it in one second...

Quote from Sherman1986 jump

For me, it is Zombie Chow, like a lot of people already said.

What a tough decision, thinked about it in one second /sarcasm

About as tough a decision as it dying to a 3/1 Leper Gnome.

But as least you thinked about it.

Quote from kingius jump

I have mixed feelings about Zombie Chow having lost a few matches because the opponent collected the +5 health when I did not expect it to happen, so I feel its a risky card anyway. Brilliant at the start of the game, a potential liability to draw it towards the end of the game and a real risk to winning if played late. That's my experience anyway.

That makes it the perfect card to start feeling out while you wait for the expansion. Every time you draw it make a mental not of whether it would have been better to draw this card instead. Make sure to count how often the opponent can remove it early, and how often it can survive till turn 3 (especially if you draw it on turn 2 and have to play it on turn 2).  

It's not a perfect system to see exactly what would have happened, but when you can't actually just put the other card in right now it is a pretty good way to get a feel for it without changing your deck at all.

Quote from teh_axi jump

Quote from Sherman1986 jump

For me, it is Zombie Chow, like a lot of people already said.

What a tough decision, thinked about it in one second /sarcasm

About as tough a decision as it dying to a 3/1 Leper Gnome.

But as least you thinked about it.

LOL. If the opponent playing aggro trades his leper gnome (boosted by glaive bazooka obviously) with my two drop minion, instead of going face, isn't it a good thing for us?

Give me a break man...

Quote from kingius jump

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I'm not entirely convinced, but I don't feel quite as strongly now either. I still think it would be a mistake to put it into a ramp deck because it will be a wasted turn because the ramp up is going to be removed almost instantly (as opposed to sticking with Wild Growth).

I think that you can still run the wild growths with this. If it gets removed then no big deal, at least it traded for something and kept you from taking damage to the face. If it lives, well then you just got a turn or two of ramp with a body attached to it. If you have this and wild growth on turn two then you would play wild growth just like you would anyway. Overall I think it might take the place of zombie chow as it will do a lot of the same things (low drop trading fodder, good to play into a mirror entity, ect.) while also possibly having some synergy with the deck.  

There will be times where you would rather have the chow (like if you open wild growth), so only time will tell if this will be overall better than chow in druid, but i think we will see it played some in constructed.  

Quote from Sherman1986 jump

Give me a break man...

Chow killing the Gnome and still being alive, then following with a standard ramp is better.

Quote from dplWILDY jump

Yes, thats what I'm saying. However it has the potential to A. Not die and get duper value. or B. Die after the value loss has been negated (Tink in beast druid, recombob in others). And whichever of those happen, its still pushed the game forward a turn. Simply wild growthing on turn two lets you play four drops, wheres now you can play 5 drops and you opponent isnt any more ahead.

Right so you are going to play this card, recombobulator and Tinkmaster, along with normal Druid cards? To waste multiple cards just to be able to play 5 drops (would be  mana 6 actually) on the same turn you could have normally just wild growth into a 4 then 5 drop anyway?

What exactly are you going to cut to play this awesome Tinkmaster Moonfire ramp deck?

Quote from kingius jump

It's definitely worse than wild growth! You play Wild Growth to get a permanent ramp up towards the high cost of Druid cards. You do not play an average minionto temporarily gain a boost only to have it taken away later (probably one turn later) because that will not allow you to ramp up. Wild Growth is useful late game as well by providing another card draw. There's no way I'd switch out Wild Growth from a Druid deck for this or even put it in alongside it. It's just too easy to remove. I'm begininng to think that those arguing for this want to see weak Druids.

The problem with Wild Growth is how bad a play it is after turn 4. Early game you can afford to throw away tempo when you give yourself 7-8 turns of tempo to get it back. Late game, the difference in 7 and 8 mana is don't big enough to afford the initial tempo loss of playing Wild Growth. This is why everyone sits on it after a certain point.

Also Wild Growth is a horrid late game card as no one would put a zero mana Card in their deck that simply said "Draw a different card". They would just put a different card in their deck. Let alone would no one play one that also says "and throw away two mana in the process." The only reason Wild Growth is played is for the ramp potential. If you miss playing it on turns 2,3, or 4, it is a very bad card.

Quote from Abolitionist jump

Also Wild Growth is a horrid late game card as no one would put a zero mana Card in their deck that simply said "Draw a different card".

How is a vanilla 2/3 better than drawing a card late game?

Quote from teh_axi jump

Quote from Abolitionist jump

Also Wild Growth is a horrid late game card as no one would put a zero mana Card in their deck that simply said "Draw a different card".

How is a vanilla 2/3 better than drawing a card late game?

Because it only draws one card in exchange or one card. That's just waste of a space. Arcane Intellect atleast draws 2, which maks it worth. Drawing one and not leaving a body is just waste of a spot.

Quote from Firebolts jump

Because it only draws one card in exchange or one card. That's just waste of a space. Arcane Intellect atleast draws 2, which maks it worth. Drawing one and not leaving a body is just waste of a spot.

So Wild Growth is a waste of a spot and River Crocolisk is a good late game play now LOL?

Seriously this thread has it all.

Quote from teh_axi jump

Quote from Firebolts jump

Because it only draws one card in exchange or one card. That's just waste of a space. Arcane Intellect atleast draws 2, which maks it worth. Drawing one and not leaving a body is just waste of a spot.

So Wild Growth is a waste of a spot and River Crocolisk is a good late game play now LOL?

Seriously this thread has it all.

Let me explain my point.

If there was a card in the game that read: Draw a card and it was a spell, would it see play? No, because that just reduced your deck to 28 cards.

Playing Wild Growth in the beginning is good, because you gain the mana crystal, but becomes a waste of 2 mana and a card when you gt to 10 mana.

Meanwhile, Aspirant gives you a body, even if it's small. You're not getting great value, but you're not wasting a deckslot late game. 

So a body for 2/3 is better then wasting a deckslot in the late game.

Its just straight up better to have Rag and a 2/3 than to just have Rag on a turn 10 play because you spent 2 mana cycling. Card draw that spends mana that only replaces itself is the worst of all worlds. 

If there was a spell that said "(0) draw a card" then almost every deck would play it.  Having a smaller deck is really good for most decks as it makes them more consistent.

No one is saying Wild Growth is worse than River Croc, it isn't. the problem with newer players is they don't understand the situations that make a card better and therefore have a difficulty When it gets past some Reid ranking system talking about the value of cards.

Quote from Abolitionist jump

Its just straight up better to have Rag and a 2/3 than to just have Rag on a turn 10 play because you spent 2 mana cycling. Card draw that spends mana that only replaces itself is the worst of all worlds. 

Yes I'd much rather have a Crocolisk than potentially cycling into another actually useful card.

Quote from Firebolts jump

Let me explain my point.

So you point is Wild Growth is a waste of a deck slot and River Crocolisk isn't a bad late game play?

You added more words but you just said the exact same thing.

Quote from Wraith421 jump

If there was a spell that said "(0) draw a card" then almost every deck would play it.  Having a smaller deck is really good for most decks as it makes them more consistent.

LOL. I assume this is sarcasm.