Not in my eyes it isn't. I see it as an "All or nothing" card that you can only play in very specific decks, in which it is ridiculously hard to play around without very specific counters. I am a fan of neither. Limits deck variety.
Most of the cards that were nerfed were unecessary, warriors need armor to stack or else the hero power is bad and shield slam is strong because warriors have unreliable board clears so in return their single target clearing is above average. No one cares about 5 mana giants that's why fel reaper is a non issue because 8/8 means nothing and its effect is bad. Warlock hero power is good because their class cards are terrible unless your deck is designed to make them good I can go on but most of the cards you nerfed are heavily over nerfed when none of them are even used that heavily outside of very specific archetypes.
There's litterally whole decks built around it... That doesn't limit deck variety.
What I meant was there are very few decks that can actually include Molten Giant. And for those very few decks, people need to include things like BGH in every deck they make. I'd prefer if it was potentially good in any deck, and it didn't force everyone else to fill up card slots with things they don't want.
There's litterally whole decks built around it... That doesn't limit deck variety.
What I meant was there are very few decks that can actually include Molten Giant. And for those very few decks, people need to include things like BGH in every deck they make. I'd prefer if it was potentially good in any deck, and it didn't force everyone else to fill up card slots with things they don't want.
If te idea is to make a giant good in every deck, then every deck will still need to run BGH, so I dont see that it solves that problem. Unless youre trying to say that your ok with this, and you just want to guarantee that your BGH wont be dead? I'm having trouble following the logic here . . .
If te idea is to make a giant good in every deck, then every deck will still need to run BGH, so I dont see that it solves that problem. Unless youre trying to say that your ok with this, and you just want to guarantee that your BGH wont be dead? I'm having trouble following the logic here . . .
The logic is that it isn't so strong that you need hard-counters for it, nor so conditional you need to build your deck around it. Does that make sense?
If te idea is to make a giant good in every deck, then every deck will still need to run BGH, so I dont see that it solves that problem. Unless youre trying to say that your ok with this, and you just want to guarantee that your BGH wont be dead? I'm having trouble following the logic here . . .
The logic is that it isn't so strong that you need hard-counters for it, nor so conditional you need to build your deck around it. Does that make sense?
but the gaints are the last big vanilla minions in the game other than spider tank that will see any use and having a sometimes a 5 cost card with 8/8 is not going to played when it's usually going to be played for 8 so you'll end up never seeing giants and thus the meta will become more of the same instead of with at least a different archetype that makes a card like BGH viable (although Dr. Boom kinda does that already)
Here's a gallery of all ideas I have for Hearthstone, including new cards and changes to existing cards and powers.
Some highlights:
Feel free to comment. Just keep it civil. ;)
Sorry, but face is NOT place :P
So... you're the part of Blizz that likes to nerf cards into oblivion?
This is statement is false.
I wish I were. :D
Sorry, but face is NOT place :P
Not in my eyes it isn't. I see it as an "All or nothing" card that you can only play in very specific decks, in which it is ridiculously hard to play around without very specific counters. I am a fan of neither. Limits deck variety.
Sorry, but face is NOT place :P
Most of the cards that were nerfed were unecessary, warriors need armor to stack or else the hero power is bad and shield slam is strong because warriors have unreliable board clears so in return their single target clearing is above average. No one cares about 5 mana giants that's why fel reaper is a non issue because 8/8 means nothing and its effect is bad. Warlock hero power is good because their class cards are terrible unless your deck is designed to make them good I can go on but most of the cards you nerfed are heavily over nerfed when none of them are even used that heavily outside of very specific archetypes.
What I meant was there are very few decks that can actually include Molten Giant. And for those very few decks, people need to include things like BGH in every deck they make. I'd prefer if it was potentially good in any deck, and it didn't force everyone else to fill up card slots with things they don't want.
Sorry, but face is NOT place :P
If te idea is to make a giant good in every deck, then every deck will still need to run BGH, so I dont see that it solves that problem. Unless youre trying to say that your ok with this, and you just want to guarantee that your BGH wont be dead? I'm having trouble following the logic here . . .
The logic is that it isn't so strong that you need hard-counters for it, nor so conditional you need to build your deck around it. Does that make sense?
Sorry, but face is NOT place :P
but the gaints are the last big vanilla minions in the game other than spider tank that will see any use and having a sometimes a 5 cost card with 8/8 is not going to played when it's usually going to be played for 8 so you'll end up never seeing giants and thus the meta will become more of the same instead of with at least a different archetype that makes a card like BGH viable (although Dr. Boom kinda does that already)
What about the new card ideas. Any remarks for those? I'd love some feedback.
Sorry, but face is NOT place :P