Foreword: I am not a lore nazi. I am perfectly aware that HS is not meant to be canon. Yet, it is warcraft-based.
Well, title says it all. My arguments are:
top rarity should be specific of truly mythical cards, lorewise or character-wise. Having so many legendaries and so many who just have a name but no character at all makes the rank much less exclusive than it should be. It makes no sense whatsoever that, say, Gormok the Impaler or Maexxna are legendary. They could be unique epics (as in, their gem colour could be purple) and everything would be fine. On the other hand, Hogger, has no lore, but he IS a character for warcraft/wow community as fun character, so it would still fit the role. Similar thing for Ragnaros, Lightlord: he is a twisted warcraft character, yet a character, so he is fine as legendary.
top rarity should be REALLY rare to be seen. Not just for the drop/cost, but most of all for the chance of encountering them in a game. Decks containing many legendaries look completely dumb to me. Like a knight riding in a battle wearing an armor completely covered with shining gems, I dunno if I am being clear on what I mean...
Therefore I argue that there should be a new legendary rank, or a scale up of some of the current orange cards, which would include cards like Grommash Hellscream or C'Thun, but NOT cards like Gormok the Impaler or Anomalus (which would rather count as new epic). Crafting costs would stay the same, except for new legendaries, whose cost would scale up by one rank (equal to current golden legendary).
A new rarity introduced (taken from wow): uncommon (green gem). All current ranks should translate. Current common would stay as it is (white). Current rare > new uncommon, current epic > new rare, current legendary (part of them) > new epic. > New top legendary rank.
New Legendaries should be classic only for class legendary, + a bunch of neutral legendaries for each new expansion (including some neutral classics, such as dragon aspects).
Also, there should be only ONE legendary per raid, not one per wing.
Each deck should include only one legendary card. EG: you would have to choose one between Archmage Antonidas and Alexstrasza. You could not have both in the same deck.
New epic would work exactly as current legendary: you could own and include in decks only one epic card, but you can include as many different epics as you have. EG: you can have only one Gormok, but he could stay in the same deck with Maexxna and Captain Greenskin and many other new epics (scaled down current legendaries).
Main reason for "legendary" is to restrict cards to one entity. And allowing only one legendary per deck would be really silly and would make 95% of all legendarues unplayable. No. It´s fine as it is.
Could see this possibly happening in a future expansion with new sets of beyond legendary cards (only having one in your deck). It won't happen in the current state of the game though with these legendaries.
Main reason for "legendary" is to restrict cards to one entity. And allowing only one legendary per deck would be really silly and would make 95% of all legendarues unplayable. No. It´s fine as it is.
I see your point, but keep in mind that most current legendaries would turn new epic in my hypothesis. So lack of synergy would not be a problem in most cases.
I'm pretty sure the dev team doesn't give a damn about the WoW lore at this point.
Yes, which is one of the reasons I opened the thread. On the other hand, more than lore on its own, my concern was manily on legendary as a rank for characters. As I mentioned, Hogger as legendary is fine. He's got basically no lore, but he is a character for the community. It makes sens. Gormok the Impaler is not.
I'm pretty sure the dev team doesn't give a damn about the WoW lore at this point.
The Hearthstone Dev team never cared about the lore because their game was never in the lore. It did not exist.
"Whispers of the Old Gods (if not all of Hearthstone) is definitely a "What If?" take on Warcraft lore." -Ben Brode tweet
They never took the lore to the game seriously because it was never meant to be serious in the first place. If you look at the flavor text in the collection screen for some of the cards, they poke fun at lore in a lot of cases.
Edit: As for the discussion at hand, I personally think it's fine as it is. I mean, they can hardly nerf or add in cards half the time without breaking the coding in some way, such as the Unearthed Raptor crash bug.
I am not a fan of restricting the amount of legendary cards you can have in your deck as it would ruin some of the decks we have currently. Maybe if you would dump all old legendary cards in new category it might work.
But I would love to see more rarity levels. But if we are talking about WoW-universe, legendaries have in some sense "lost" their legendary status. For example, in the new wow expansion, you can obtain legendary items randomly from world mobs. And there is a lot of them.
Also I think you cannot really force legendaries to be "extremely rare" unless you either make them super hard to get or make them really, really expensive to craft. Both would make it harder for new players and make the game seem more "pay to win".
The lore of the game is simple. This was a game created by someone (the inn keeper?) within the warcraft universe. That gives them a lot of leeway in what they can do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
The probability that Blizzard would do something like this is very, very low. They are very resistant to changing their pre-established structures/design. I also don't think OP's system is particularly interesting either, but that's just a personal opinion.
Have you ever tried a deck majorily filled with Legendaries? It's horrible. Legendaries are meant to be rare, unique yet situational. Not rare, unique and powerful than every other rarity
Have you ever tried a deck majorily filled with Legendaries? It's horrible. Legendaries are meant to be rare, unique yet situational. Not rare, unique and powerful than every other rarity
well, look at N'zoth pally, just to name one. It looks so blingy that I become blind just at looking at their deck in a forum. :P I mean, the deck works, is good and everything, but it looks pathetic (to me).
Have you ever tried a deck majorily filled with Legendaries? It's horrible. Legendaries are meant to be rare, unique yet situational. Not rare, unique and powerful than every other rarity
well, look at N'zoth pally, just to name one. It looks so blingy that I become blind just at looking at their deck in a forum. :P I mean, the deck works, is good and everything, but it looks pathetic (to me).
Tirion and Sylvanas are legendaries with higher value than the majority of legendaries since the game was released. Otherwise with other legendaries, independently; they have value yet some form of disadvantage, something is given or taken to compromise. There are cards easily replaceable with other identical non-legendaries. Even if its more beneficial to have the legendary over the other, it shouldnt frequently turn the tables on the game result. The issue with that type of deck is what that class has to offer compared to other class and how the neutral legendaries affect each class differently.
I have to admit that I'm lost as to why Maexxna wouldn't be a "legendary" card by your definition. How are WoW bosses not good enough to be legendary? I kind of get the Gormok argument since he's just some random magnataur they trudged in for you to fight, but Maexxna has some level of lore.
I have to admit that I'm lost as to why Maexxna wouldn't be a "legendary" card by your definition. How are WoW bosses not good enough to be legendary? I kind of get the Gormok argument since he's just some random magnataur they trudged in for you to fight, but Maexxna has some level of lore.
Yeah, sorry if I haven't been clear. Maexxna is a raid boss, yes. But it is basically a giant named spider with a loot, just a loot holder for raiders. If Maexxna had no name at all, just its raid loot, it would make no difference. She could easily be Humongous Black Widow, both in wow and hs. Hogger could not be Badass Gnoll. Not without being a different character. Same for Leeroy Jenkins, etc.
Anyway, it is something reeeally subtle. Just a criterion that came up to me against the "too many top-rarity/but-not-so-rare cards".
I do get it is umprobable that blizz changes legendary rules now. I just wanted to know whether it was a common impression or not.
The new Ragnaros is the biggest joke of a card, putting Ragnaros into a dress, pretty much proves Ben Brode don't give a shit about WOW lore.
You're either trolling hard or ignorant/blind to detail. The "dress" you see is actually molten lava swirled around him because that's part of his look. Ragnaros
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Foreword: I am not a lore nazi. I am perfectly aware that HS is not meant to be canon. Yet, it is warcraft-based.
Well, title says it all. My arguments are:
It makes no sense whatsoever that, say, Gormok the Impaler or Maexxna are legendary. They could be unique epics (as in, their gem colour could be purple) and everything would be fine. On the other hand, Hogger, has no lore, but he IS a character for warcraft/wow community as fun character, so it would still fit the role. Similar thing for Ragnaros, Lightlord: he is a twisted warcraft character, yet a character, so he is fine as legendary.
Therefore I argue that there should be a new legendary rank, or a scale up of some of the current orange cards, which would include cards like Grommash Hellscream or C'Thun, but NOT cards like Gormok the Impaler or Anomalus (which would rather count as new epic).
Crafting costs would stay the same, except for new legendaries, whose cost would scale up by one rank (equal to current golden legendary).
A new rarity introduced (taken from wow): uncommon (green gem). All current ranks should translate. Current common would stay as it is (white).
Current rare > new uncommon, current epic > new rare, current legendary (part of them) > new epic.
> New top legendary rank.
PS: HS specific characters such as Reno Jackson would NOT be legendary in my mind, but "unique epics", same for Maexxna or Gormok the Impaler or Bolf Ramshield. Brann Bronzebeard would be the final and only legendary of LOE (he's a warcraft character).
I hope I was clear enough... There could be some fairness problems about implementation, but I am sure it could be done, somehow. What do you think?
Main reason for "legendary" is to restrict cards to one entity. And allowing only one legendary per deck would be really silly and would make 95% of all legendarues unplayable. No. It´s fine as it is.
Could see this possibly happening in a future expansion with new sets of beyond legendary cards (only having one in your deck). It won't happen in the current state of the game though with these legendaries.
I'm pretty sure the dev team doesn't give a damn about the WoW lore at this point.
I only played WOW to get Lady Liadrin so I don't know anything about its lore but they made this,so I don't think they really care about the lore.....
"この 先は 暗い 夜道 だけが も 知らない それでも信じて 進むんだ 星が その道 を 少し でも 照らしてくをるのを"
I am not a fan of restricting the amount of legendary cards you can have in your deck as it would ruin some of the decks we have currently. Maybe if you would dump all old legendary cards in new category it might work.
But I would love to see more rarity levels. But if we are talking about WoW-universe, legendaries have in some sense "lost" their legendary status. For example, in the new wow expansion, you can obtain legendary items randomly from world mobs. And there is a lot of them.
Also I think you cannot really force legendaries to be "extremely rare" unless you either make them super hard to get or make them really, really expensive to craft. Both would make it harder for new players and make the game seem more "pay to win".
The new Ragnaros is the biggest joke of a card, putting Ragnaros into a dress, pretty much proves Ben Brode don't give a shit about WOW lore.
The lore of the game is simple. This was a game created by someone (the inn keeper?) within the warcraft universe. That gives them a lot of leeway in what they can do.
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
The probability that Blizzard would do something like this is very, very low. They are very resistant to changing their pre-established structures/design. I also don't think OP's system is particularly interesting either, but that's just a personal opinion.
Have you ever tried a deck majorily filled with Legendaries? It's horrible. Legendaries are meant to be rare, unique yet situational. Not rare, unique and powerful than every other rarity
Gameplay and game mechanics should always come before lore, so no.
I have to admit that I'm lost as to why Maexxna wouldn't be a "legendary" card by your definition. How are WoW bosses not good enough to be legendary? I kind of get the Gormok argument since he's just some random magnataur they trudged in for you to fight, but Maexxna has some level of lore.
If Maexxna had no name at all, just its raid loot, it would make no difference. She could easily be Humongous Black Widow, both in wow and hs.
Hogger could not be Badass Gnoll. Not without being a different character. Same for Leeroy Jenkins, etc.
The "beyond legendary one per deck" slot is your hero.