Hearthpwn

Quote from Mewdrops >>

Quote from nobravery >>

Quote from nurgling13 >>

Hopefully, with another title that asked us to make a card for a deck archetype we can show we're better than Pepe. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case so far. From what I've read, even the people taking the time to read here don't seem to care about it. We can see this with the praise given to Interview with Nat. This is not a mill card. No mill deck would put a 9-Cost card in that draws their opponent 0.5 cards and anti-synergizes with Vanish. Daring Reporters are not good, because Mill needs to be able to balance their whole board back to their hand when they need to, and they would lose their buffs for this. Interview with Nat is an OP card. It's straight up 10 Cost worth of cards for 9-mana, and the cards work together on top of that. But it's not a card for Mill. It's a card for it's own Combo deck. We need to show we have enough discernment that we don't pick the 1 card in here that doesn't fit in Mill as the winner of the Mill competition. Come on people.

On top of that, the card makes zero sense lorewise. I see you guys are easily impressed, flavor-wise. I mean, it was really clever to make a card that summons two Daring Reporters and call it in an interview. I get that. But why the hell are they interviewing Nat, the Darkfisher, of all people in Hearthstone? It doesn't make any sense. I mean, it's clearly so it would fit with this specific competition theme that some random person like that was chosen. Plus, what does this have to do with Rogue? Nothing. This isn't a Rogue card, it isn't a Mill card. 

 May me copy the restrictions of the competition for you:

• Your card must thin your opponent's deck, such as by forcing them to draw from it (Example: Naturalize) or by pulling cards directly from it (Example: Deathlord).
• Alternatively, your card may instead benefit from your opponent having more cards in their hand, something that occurs quite often in Mill decks in Hearthstone. This could be more than a specific number (Example: Goblin Sapper) or a large number of cards in general (Example: Clockwork Giant).

Does it state that I must make something that suits a mill deck? No.

And btw, I asked in the discussion thread whether my card meets the requirements this week. Asylum said yes.

 I think you misunderstood him/her (sorry Nurgling IDK your gender XD). He/she's saying that your card isn't a card for Mill decks and thus goes against the 'spirit' of the week, using Pepe and the Beast Druid week as an example. He/she's also saying that your card is OP, and has certain thematic problems. At no point did he/she say that your card didn't follow the rules.

Honestly, I think he/she has a point.

 

Quote from nobravery >>

Quote from Mewdrops >>

Quote from nobravery >>

Quote from nurgling13 >>

Hopefully, with another title that asked us to make a card for a deck archetype we can show we're better than Pepe. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case so far. From what I've read, even the people taking the time to read here don't seem to care about it. We can see this with the praise given to Interview with Nat. This is not a mill card. No mill deck would put a 9-Cost card in that draws their opponent 0.5 cards and anti-synergizes with Vanish. Daring Reporters are not good, because Mill needs to be able to balance their whole board back to their hand when they need to, and they would lose their buffs for this. Interview with Nat is an OP card. It's straight up 10 Cost worth of cards for 9-mana, and the cards work together on top of that. But it's not a card for Mill. It's a card for it's own Combo deck. We need to show we have enough discernment that we don't pick the 1 card in here that doesn't fit in Mill as the winner of the Mill competition. Come on people.

On top of that, the card makes zero sense lorewise. I see you guys are easily impressed, flavor-wise. I mean, it was really clever to make a card that summons two Daring Reporters and call it in an interview. I get that. But why the hell are they interviewing Nat, the Darkfisher, of all people in Hearthstone? It doesn't make any sense. I mean, it's clearly so it would fit with this specific competition theme that some random person like that was chosen. Plus, what does this have to do with Rogue? Nothing. This isn't a Rogue card, it isn't a Mill card. 

 May me copy the restrictions of the competition for you:

• Your card must thin your opponent's deck, such as by forcing them to draw from it (Example: Naturalize) or by pulling cards directly from it (Example: Deathlord).
• Alternatively, your card may instead benefit from your opponent having more cards in their hand, something that occurs quite often in Mill decks in Hearthstone. This could be more than a specific number (Example: Goblin Sapper) or a large number of cards in general (Example: Clockwork Giant).

Does it state that I must make something that suits a mill deck? No.

And btw, I asked in the discussion thread whether my card meets the requirements this week. Asylum said yes.

 I think you misunderstood him/her (sorry Nurgling IDK your gender XD). He/she's saying that your card isn't a card for Mill decks and thus goes against the 'spirit' of the week, using Pepe and the Beast Druid week as an example. He/she's also saying that your card is OP, and has certain thematic problems. At no point did he/she say that your card didn't follow the rules.

Honestly, I think he/she has a point.

 

 Misunderstanding between Nurgling and me happens quite often...

It's interesting that when I posted the card at reddit, people told me it's underpowered and would see no play, and while here in this post, every comment on the card seems to criticise it for been OP.

Quote from nobravery >>

Quote from Mewdrops >>

Quote from nobravery >>

Quote from nurgling13 >>

Hopefully, with another title that asked us to make a card for a deck archetype we can show we're better than Pepe. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case so far. From what I've read, even the people taking the time to read here don't seem to care about it. We can see this with the praise given to Interview with Nat. This is not a mill card. No mill deck would put a 9-Cost card in that draws their opponent 0.5 cards and anti-synergizes with Vanish. Daring Reporters are not good, because Mill needs to be able to balance their whole board back to their hand when they need to, and they would lose their buffs for this. Interview with Nat is an OP card. It's straight up 10 Cost worth of cards for 9-mana, and the cards work together on top of that. But it's not a card for Mill. It's a card for it's own Combo deck. We need to show we have enough discernment that we don't pick the 1 card in here that doesn't fit in Mill as the winner of the Mill competition. Come on people.

On top of that, the card makes zero sense lorewise. I see you guys are easily impressed, flavor-wise. I mean, it was really clever to make a card that summons two Daring Reporters and call it in an interview. I get that. But why the hell are they interviewing Nat, the Darkfisher, of all people in Hearthstone? It doesn't make any sense. I mean, it's clearly so it would fit with this specific competition theme that some random person like that was chosen. Plus, what does this have to do with Rogue? Nothing. This isn't a Rogue card, it isn't a Mill card. 

 May me copy the restrictions of the competition for you:

• Your card must thin your opponent's deck, such as by forcing them to draw from it (Example: Naturalize) or by pulling cards directly from it (Example: Deathlord).
• Alternatively, your card may instead benefit from your opponent having more cards in their hand, something that occurs quite often in Mill decks in Hearthstone. This could be more than a specific number (Example: Goblin Sapper) or a large number of cards in general (Example: Clockwork Giant).

Does it state that I must make something that suits a mill deck? No.

And btw, I asked in the discussion thread whether my card meets the requirements this week. Asylum said yes.

 I think you misunderstood him/her (sorry Nurgling IDK your gender XD). He/she's saying that your card isn't a card for Mill decks and thus goes against the 'spirit' of the week, using Pepe and the Beast Druid week as an example. He/she's also saying that your card is OP, and has certain thematic problems. At no point did he/she say that your card didn't follow the rules.

Honestly, I think he/she has a point.

 

 Misunderstanding between Nurgling and me happens quite often...

It's interesting that when I posted the card at reddit, people told me it's underpowered and would see no play, and while here in this post, every comment on the card seems to criticise it for been OP.

Quote from Boethion >>

Quote from nurgling13 >>

Quote from nobravery >>

Quote from Mewdrops >>

Quote from nobravery >>

Quote from nurgling13 >>

Hopefully, with another title that asked us to make a card for a deck archetype we can show we're better than Pepe. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case so far. From what I've read, even the people taking the time to read here don't seem to care about it. We can see this with the praise given to Interview with Nat. This is not a mill card. No mill deck would put a 9-Cost card in that draws their opponent 0.5 cards and anti-synergizes with Vanish. Daring Reporters are not good, because Mill needs to be able to balance their whole board back to their hand when they need to, and they would lose their buffs for this. Interview with Nat is an OP card. It's straight up 10 Cost worth of cards for 9-mana, and the cards work together on top of that. But it's not a card for Mill. It's a card for it's own Combo deck. We need to show we have enough discernment that we don't pick the 1 card in here that doesn't fit in Mill as the winner of the Mill competition. Come on people.

On top of that, the card makes zero sense lorewise. I see you guys are easily impressed, flavor-wise. I mean, it was really clever to make a card that summons two Daring Reporters and call it in an interview. I get that. But why the hell are they interviewing Nat, the Darkfisher, of all people in Hearthstone? It doesn't make any sense. I mean, it's clearly so it would fit with this specific competition theme that some random person like that was chosen. Plus, what does this have to do with Rogue? Nothing. This isn't a Rogue card, it isn't a Mill card. 

 May me copy the restrictions of the competition for you:

• Your card must thin your opponent's deck, such as by forcing them to draw from it (Example: Naturalize) or by pulling cards directly from it (Example: Deathlord).
• Alternatively, your card may instead benefit from your opponent having more cards in their hand, something that occurs quite often in Mill decks in Hearthstone. This could be more than a specific number (Example: Goblin Sapper) or a large number of cards in general (Example: Clockwork Giant).

Does it state that I must make something that suits a mill deck? No.

And btw, I asked in the discussion thread whether my card meets the requirements this week. Asylum said yes.

 I think you misunderstood him/her (sorry Nurgling IDK your gender XD). He/she's saying that your card isn't a card for Mill decks and thus goes against the 'spirit' of the week, using Pepe and the Beast Druid week as an example. He/she's also saying that your card is OP, and has certain thematic problems. At no point did he/she say that your card didn't follow the rules.

Honestly, I think he/she has a point.

 

 Misunderstanding between Nurgling and me happens quite often...

It's interesting that when I posted the card at reddit, people told me it's underpowered and would see no play, and while here in this post, every comment on the card seems to criticise it for been OP.

There's a very powerful combo with Preparation+Interview with Nat+Conceal on turn 7 (6 with Coin), followed by 2 Coldlight Oracles (or Coldlight+bounce and recast) next turn. That's 16 or 18 damage from the Daring Reporters depending on whether Nat procs or not. That's not good on a card that's already summoning more mana worth of cards than it costs.

 The problem is, that they don't have Charge and no relevant effect besides their stats, so even with Preparation its still a bad card and would never see play in any serious deck. Your combo is also unrealistic to pull off, since it needs so many cards and the right setup on the board (preferably an empty board) to work, otherwise cards like Giant Sand Worm, Blood of The Ancient One, etc would be really powerful, but they just aren't.

With regards to the question of the power level of An Interview With Nat, I think there's an important question that needs to be asked:

Does a card need to be "good" to fit this theme?

I think that the answer is no, and I think that for several reasons:

1) The theme creator themselves never said this week's goal was to elevate, push, advance, or make more viable mill strategies. The way that they originally posited this theme to us was, and I quote:

Theme: Time to celebrate those who would outlast and endure in their battles with their enemies. To "mill" is to force someone to draw through their deck faster than normal so they start taking fatigue damage. This strategy also tends to fill up an opponent's hand and burn their cards.

I see "celebrate" and that's pretty much it. The theme can just be to make mill cards, without actually needing to make mill strategies significantly better. Granted, this is from the private message between us and the theme creator, so I can certainly see how folks might have assumed making mill better was the goal, but I don't think we ever actually said that.

2) There are plenty of real, existing mill cards that don't see play even in mill decks because they're not good enough. But just because they're not good enough to be used doesn't mean we don't agree that they're mill cards. Nat, the Darkfisher himself is a great example. He is pretty unarguably a mill card. He is also not good enough to make it into most mill decks.

3) Given that a lot of people dislike mill strategies, including the developers themselves who openly stated it's not one they want to make viable, making a mill card that isn't great is arguably both more appealing and realistic than making one that is.

Quote from Asylum_Rhapsody >>

With regards to the question of the power level of An Interview With Nat, I think there's an important question that needs to be asked:

Does a card need to be "good" to fit this theme?

I think that the answer is no, and I think that for several reasons:

1) The theme creator themselves never said this week's goal was to elevate, push, advance, or make more viable mill strategies. The way that they originally posited this theme to us was, and I quote:

Theme: Time to celebrate those who would outlast and endure in their battles with their enemies. To "mill" is to force someone to draw through their deck faster than normal so they start taking fatigue damage. This strategy also tends to fill up an opponent's hand and burn their cards.

I see "celebrate" and that's pretty much it. The theme can just be to make mill cards, without actually needing to make mill strategies significantly better. Granted, this is from the private message between us and the theme creator, so I can certainly see how folks might have assumed making mill better was the goal, but I don't think we ever actually said that.

2) There are plenty of real, existing mill cards that don't see play even in mill decks because they're not good enough. But just because they're not good enough to be used doesn't mean we don't agree that they're mill cards. Nat, the Darkfisher himself is a great example. He is pretty unarguably a mill card. He is also not good enough to make it into most mill decks.

3) Given that a lot of people dislike mill strategies, including the developers themselves who openly stated it's not one they want to make viable, making a mill card that isn't great is arguably both more appealing and realistic than making one that is.

Quote from Boethion >>

Voidform - "WoW, a card that could enable Shadowform with this weeks theme slapped onto it, how creative and rare to see" /s

Quote from SeventhSolar >>

Quote from CheeseEatingSurrenderMonkey >>

Cards pushing a specific archetype aren't rare. Yes, a lot of people like Shadowform synergy because that's an archetype we all want to see.

And to the guy who said 0-mana Shadowform is broken: my card is balanced around the Assassinate/Naturalize distinction. HS designers thought a 4-mana discount is worth 2 cards yet Naturalize doesn't see any play (it may once Mulch rotates out though) so a 3 mana discount for 2 cards is not broken at all.

 Actually, Voidform is broken.  There are several major differences here between Rogue and Priest.

1. Priests don't actually need to do that much damage if they don't build all-in for it.  The difference between Shadowform for rogues and Shadowform for priest can't be ignored.  Where in priest you're giving up this massive defensive tool which you almost always use, rogues have a hero power that becomes less useful as the game goes on.
2. Card draw matters far more to a priest than to a rogue.  A priest needs to outvalue their opponent.  This is the priest game plan, and Voidform would probably be more, although still not entirely, balanced in priest.  Rogue is the hypertempo class.  It really doesn't care how many cards its opponents draw.
3. Tempo matters.  The difference in tempo between Shadowform and Voidform is significant.  Shadowform's first cast requires 5 mana, which is completely unusable for what's clearly a tempo/control tool.  A significant loss of tempo will certainly make things harder for any class.  Voidform's relatively high tempo/value mix plays right into what the rogue needs.  Worth more than just two cards for your opponent.
4. Hunter hero power in rogue/priest.  What happens if you give priests the hunter hero power?  They lose their hero power.  What happens if you give rogues the hunter hero power?  Just enough reach to outSMOrc hunters one hundred percent of the time.  Because rogue is the class with ridiculously high tempo.