⚙
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.
I believe your formula was coined in by another user months ago, but it actually included calculations for things like taunt and charge, and how the stats are spread as well. Might as well try to find that.
You're looking for this, which is built upon a post at TeamLiquid (which is linked):
http://hearthpoe.blogspot.ca/2014/01/minion-valuation.html
Poetic.
No, that one talks on how Blizzard, in theory, balances cards. The one I'm talking about is more of a "user valuation". It's this one:
http://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/theorycrafting/2526-general-theory-of-creature-efficiency
Similar, yet different. Specially when valuating things like charge.
This card seems to popup in winning weekend tournament decks every other week.
You may think its over costed, but it appears to be doing fine.
Nozdormu wins you every game where you opponent has to go to the bathroom on turn 9.
It serves a great purpose for clearing/ending game. I think the utility is what we need to value not so much the 3 attack.
The power of Al'akir is that he does not need double rockbiter to be useful. Played with a single rockbiter it is still 12 damage, with a single flametongue it is 10, even on his own he deals 6 damage which is more than any creature without charge does.
What makes him worth it however (as stated before) is that Al'akir is not just a niche burst card. He is a very real creature that has an immediate impact on the board and serves as a very real blocker when needed.
i dont think its is the worst legendary after all it was used in a deck that got first place in the recent tournment but i think it needs to get buff in some ways
Maybe lower the mana cost while adding overload.
The reason to buff a card is when its unplayable and its buff would promote a healthier, more varied metagame. At the moment Al'akir is already played in top tier, tournament winning decks, and in control vs control where still ahving the rockbiter weapons is more likely, the 18 burst damage is very very high as is.
I think Al'Akir is fine, any buffs might make him too unreasonably good. I like the current meta, aggro and control are both very viable at high tier, and midrange decks have been fairly succesful in my experience. I think until we have more cards and more mechanics in expansions its impossible to get much more variance than the current meta where ive seen decks of all kinds be fairly succesful, across multiple classes.
I think of Al'akir as a better argent commander. It might not be like the other legendaries, but their playstyles are different. The really good part about him is that he has immediate impact on the board.
You can use him in combination with a flametongue totem (preferably played on the previous turn) or a rockbiter weapon (or both) for a pretty good finisher. A lot of shaman decks already use flametongue totem and rockbitey, so putting in a win condition as well as a slightly different argent commander is pretty good. I've seen decks that have shifted away from this playstyle and use leeroy and windfury as a win condtion instead of al'akir.
I also think he'd be too good if he was buffed. Adding even 1 extra point of health or attack would just make him too powerful, but reducing the mana cost would also do the same.
I prefer Al'akir over Leeroy even though i have neither, as i'm not as comfortable being forced to take windfury as one of my card slots. Its especially good to just rely on al'akir as is because things such as flametongues can already be down in play. Al'akir also has the possiblity of brute forcing through a massive taunt and surviving, and being able to strike again immediately. It also relies on having one less card in your hand, and rockbiters are never dead cards, while windfury can be one.
This kind of reasoning is why i think Al'akir is already more solid for a shaman deck as a finsiher than leeroy, who wont see play typically until you're holding him,windfury, one or both rockbiters and have lethal, while Al'akir can also act like an argent commander.
The worst class legendaries are Prophet Velen and King Krush.
The first is seemingly good, but Priest doesn't have a lot of stuff to use with it, and he also has exactly 7 atk which makes it vulnerable to BGH.
The second is mana inneficient. Why would you ever use KK over Leeroy, for example? Leeroy + hero power is 6 mana for the same damage.
Al'Akir may seem bad, but a single Rockbiter gives him more dmg potential than a Pyroblast. He's not one of the best class legendaries (like Grommash, Tirion and Cenarius), but he has his role, and he's pretty good at it, while Velen and King Krush are not.
That being said, King Krush has really cool entrance (as does al'akir). So while i wouldnt craft him unless i'd crafted most legendaries first, i'd still use Krush. I actually dust all my priest cards, including a Velen i got, but i havent dusted hunter cards just to play with krush later on. Velen bores me massively though
Often you'd have a 8 Mana cost Pyroblast-variant that would make Shaman aggro decks house an absurd finisher. The three health doesn't matter when the damage is held to win the game.
additionally, the double rock biter weapon combo would now deliver a whopping 24 points of damage.
Yeah don't give him 12 damage straight up without any buffs, its really easy to save a single rockbiter and then that's 18 damage coming at you. Add in a second rockbiter and its 24, and then what if there's a flametongue totem too...