There could never exist a Mecha'thun deck that uses Deathwing to complete the combo, because in order for Mecha'thun's deathrattle to trigger, you can have no minions on the board. If you use Deathwing to kill Mecha'thun, the deathrattle won't trigger. So I assure you, you haven't seen "plenty of DW" versions.
I didn't realise that you were watching all of my games to know what I have or haven't seen. >_> That in itself sounds more like a poor attempt at smarm rather than an actual point.
However, that argument does not apply to old Ysera, because the card itself - not a supporting card in a deck - HAS fundamentally changed. Before, you played Ysera with the expectation of getting at least one of five different Dream cards, a card type that is uncollectable and specifically tied to her. The Dream cards ARE her effect. Now, those cards - Ysera's effect - have changed. Therefore, the card has fundamentally changed, and it warrants a dust refound. This is completely in line with Blizzard's dust refound policy and not at all inconsistent.
This is obviously and demonstrably incorrect, based on your previous helpful example and the following detail. A card that was not directly altered is being refunded. Look at it this way. if I put the old version of the card and the new version side by side, just point out the visible difference. Job done. That should be easy enough.
Look, I really want to believe you're arguing in good faith, but you're not doing yourself any favours when you're not addressing valid points such as the Togwaggle example and the fact that the Dream cards are uncollectible and intrinsically tied to Ysera. The change is not visible on the card itself, but it is very clearly functional.
What Togwaggle example? You didn't make one? You can't complain I'm not addressing arguments you didn't make. I addressed every part of your comment. What on earth are you gong on about?
A very relevant example is the nerf to Solarian Prime, an uncollectible card that can only be generated through Astromancer Solarian. Players were given a dust refund for Astromancer Solarian because its effect had changed: it no longer shuffled a 7 mama prime into your deck, but a 9 mama one. This change was not visible on the card itself, but it was very clearly still a nerf that warranted a refund. Similarly, the cards generated by Ysera have drastically changed, and Blizzard is, as always, giving a refund.
Giving an example of when a card is refunded due to a change doesn't prove anything other than what I am saying. That there is inconstancy. You think I am claiming that Ysera shouldn't be refunded. That is incorrect. I don't care if it is or not. My point is the inconsistency in terms of when things are refunded. When some cards were nerfed so they could no longer be used in Odd / Even decks, they didnt receive dust. When other cards were nerfed, for whatever reason, they did. That's the facts and is literally all I've been stating to this point.
Also, I'm not saying that I've seen every game you've ever played. I'm just saying that Mecha'thun cannot be activated by playing Deathwing, which is why I highly doubt you've seen it played on ladder. Nerfing Deathwing would not impact the Mecha'thun Warlock combo in any way, so it's very strange that you keep using it as an example. If you're wrong about one thing, maybe you could be wrong about other things too? No judgement, just saying. We're all wrong once in awhile.
Again, I didn't. If you actually read my post, you would have noted that I made the concession I was thinking about Cataclysm rather than Deathwing - it just so happened that DW was in my mind on another issue at the time. However you laboring over that is quite a strawman argument, not to mention the fact that it's very presumptive to think I haven't come across it in a Discard Meca'thun deck. Which I have. So the point is moot on two accounts really.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
There are a few minor - but key - problems with this.
Firstly, you misquoted the actual phrase. The actual "quote" is: "Never Argue With a Fool, Onlookers May Not Be Able To Tell the Difference." Which, as you can see implies quite a different outcome altogether. Though I can see why you didn't want to use the original since it not only doesn't convey your intended insult, but also reflects poorly on the person posting it if they have already been part of the argument / discussion at hand.
Secondly, this "quote" was never actually attributed to Mark Twain - hence the reason for my quoted word, "quote". There's no discoverable record of him ever actually saying it. It is a common misconception, most likely started as a base meme and people parroting its inaccuracy.
Thirdly and finally, the quote you probably were looking for (in terms of one that actually exists) is from the Bible. Proverbs 26:4 says: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."
A little harder to interpret and paste to your intended meaning, but it's easy to see where the misquote has come from and how it has morphed into something unintended from its original meaning.
All that said, Biblical-based discussions are probably not encouraged (or even allowed?) on these forums. I don't know. Never had one here. But I assume not.
In fact, going by your original misquote, perhaps I shouldn't be "arguing" with you after all. I bow to your greater "experience".
I just copied and pasted it to be honest so I don't really care. Also trying to be 'clever' doesn't hide the fact that you've still not addressed how 100% wrong all your points and arguments are in this thread. Infact I commend you though for styling it out, regardless of how much deeper you've dug your own hole with your bullshit.
I just copied and pasted it to be honest so I don't really care. Also trying to be 'clever' doesn't hide the fact that you've still not addressed how 100% wrong all your points and arguments are in this thread. Infact I commend you though for styling it out, regardless of how much deeper you've dug your own hole with your bullshit.
How is pointing out factual information "trying to be clever"? Surely that's just "being clever"...? All your blustering about me supposedly not addressing arguments (another fallacy - I obviously did, if you actually read the thread) serves only to try and hide the fact you were ironically the one "trying to be clever" with a quote that you didn't even bother to check was real. And then when you get called out on it for "your bullshit" - your classy word, not mine - you lose your temper and start slinging the insults. That's really not a good look, friend.
I just copied and pasted it to be honest so I don't really care. Also trying to be 'clever' doesn't hide the fact that you've still not addressed how 100% wrong all your points and arguments are in this thread. Infact I commend you though for styling it out, regardless of how much deeper you've dug your own hole with your bullshit.
How is pointing out factual information "trying to be clever"? Surely that's just "being clever"...? All your blustering about me supposedly not addressing arguments (another fallacy - I obviously did, if you actually read the thread) serves only to try and hide the fact you were ironically the one "trying to be clever" with a quote that you didn't even bother to check was real. And then when you get called out on it for "your bullshit" - your classy word, not mine - you lose your temper and start slinging the insults. That's really not a good look, friend.
I didn't say you didn't address the arguments, I said you haven't addressed that you were absolutely 100% wrong in all of them (which you are). Anyway either you've got a massive chip on your shoulder, or as mentioned by other posters intent on just being a troll so I'll say no more on the matter.
I just copied and pasted it to be honest so I don't really care. Also trying to be 'clever' doesn't hide the fact that you've still not addressed how 100% wrong all your points and arguments are in this thread. Infact I commend you though for styling it out, regardless of how much deeper you've dug your own hole with your bullshit.
How is pointing out factual information "trying to be clever"? Surely that's just "being clever"...? All your blustering about me supposedly not addressing arguments (another fallacy - I obviously did, if you actually read the thread) serves only to try and hide the fact you were ironically the one "trying to be clever" with a quote that you didn't even bother to check was real. And then when you get called out on it for "your bullshit" - your classy word, not mine - you lose your temper and start slinging the insults. That's really not a good look, friend.
I didn't say you didn't address the arguments, I said you haven't addressed that you were absolutely 100% wrong in all of them (which you are). Anyway either you've got a massive chip on your shoulder, or as mentioned by other posters intent on just being a troll so I'll say no more on the matter.
I "haven't addressed that I was absolutely 100% wrong in all of them"... what is that even supposed to mean? I mean, ok - let me address that then. That's completely incorrect and easily refuted by the fact that "I wasn't wrong". That was easy.
Interestingly, people who usually can't deal with their arguments being systematically dismantled often fall back on the Troll accusation trope. It's almost like they are hoping that by calling someone a troll it somehow magically means they don't have to back up their own fallacious arguments and the attention is drawn away from their incorrect statements.
It's quite bemusing that that other chap has apparently blocked me (I presume from his comment) considering I don't think I even replied to him more than once, maybe twice. Again, that's usually the case with people who don't like being faced with reasonable and logical responses to their arguments. Not that it bothers me of course, I have barely ever spoken to the guy, lol - more power to him, I say. Though I am impressed I don't think I've ever triggered someone I wasn't having a direct conversation with before, lol.
In any case, this is waaay off topic now and you've derailed this conversation enough with your insults and flaming. That's pretty rude.
What Togwaggle example? You didn't make one?
You can't complain I'm not addressing arguments you didn't make. I addressed every part of your comment. What on earth are you gong on about?
Giving an example of when a card is refunded due to a change doesn't prove anything other than what I am saying. That there is inconstancy. You think I am claiming that Ysera shouldn't be refunded. That is incorrect. I don't care if it is or not. My point is the inconsistency in terms of when things are refunded. When some cards were nerfed so they could no longer be used in Odd / Even decks, they didnt receive dust. When other cards were nerfed, for whatever reason, they did. That's the facts and is literally all I've been stating to this point.
Again, I didn't. If you actually read my post, you would have noted that I made the concession I was thinking about Cataclysm rather than Deathwing - it just so happened that DW was in my mind on another issue at the time. However you laboring over that is quite a strawman argument, not to mention the fact that it's very presumptive to think I haven't come across it in a Discard Meca'thun deck. Which I have. So the point is moot on two accounts really.
Pretty much what's in my mind.
"On her first day on the job, Myra removed the smoke detectors."
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
There are a few minor - but key - problems with this.
Firstly, you misquoted the actual phrase. The actual "quote" is:
"Never Argue With a Fool, Onlookers May Not Be Able To Tell the Difference."
Which, as you can see implies quite a different outcome altogether. Though I can see why you didn't want to use the original since it not only doesn't convey your intended insult, but also reflects poorly on the person posting it if they have already been part of the argument / discussion at hand.
Secondly, this "quote" was never actually attributed to Mark Twain - hence the reason for my quoted word, "quote". There's no discoverable record of him ever actually saying it. It is a common misconception, most likely started as a base meme and people parroting its inaccuracy.
Thirdly and finally, the quote you probably were looking for (in terms of one that actually exists) is from the Bible.
Proverbs 26:4 says:
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."
A little harder to interpret and paste to your intended meaning, but it's easy to see where the misquote has come from and how it has morphed into something unintended from its original meaning.
All that said, Biblical-based discussions are probably not encouraged (or even allowed?) on these forums. I don't know. Never had one here. But I assume not.
In fact, going by your original misquote, perhaps I shouldn't be "arguing" with you after all. I bow to your greater "experience".
I just copied and pasted it to be honest so I don't really care. Also trying to be 'clever' doesn't hide the fact that you've still not addressed how 100% wrong all your points and arguments are in this thread. Infact I commend you though for styling it out, regardless of how much deeper you've dug your own hole with your bullshit.
How is pointing out factual information "trying to be clever"?
Surely that's just "being clever"...?
All your blustering about me supposedly not addressing arguments (another fallacy - I obviously did, if you actually read the thread) serves only to try and hide the fact you were ironically the one "trying to be clever" with a quote that you didn't even bother to check was real. And then when you get called out on it for "your bullshit" - your classy word, not mine - you lose your temper and start slinging the insults.
That's really not a good look, friend.
I blocked that fool, first person in my entire account to be ignored. They’re playing dumb and 100% trolling. Not a doubt in my mind.
“What Togwaggle example?” We literally gave him a tog example 3 times on 2 different posts. It’s really childish the way they are cherry picking,
I didn't say you didn't address the arguments, I said you haven't addressed that you were absolutely 100% wrong in all of them (which you are). Anyway either you've got a massive chip on your shoulder, or as mentioned by other posters intent on just being a troll so I'll say no more on the matter.
I "haven't addressed that I was absolutely 100% wrong in all of them"... what is that even supposed to mean?
I mean, ok - let me address that then. That's completely incorrect and easily refuted by the fact that "I wasn't wrong". That was easy.
Interestingly, people who usually can't deal with their arguments being systematically dismantled often fall back on the Troll accusation trope. It's almost like they are hoping that by calling someone a troll it somehow magically means they don't have to back up their own fallacious arguments and the attention is drawn away from their incorrect statements.
It's quite bemusing that that other chap has apparently blocked me (I presume from his comment) considering I don't think I even replied to him more than once, maybe twice. Again, that's usually the case with people who don't like being faced with reasonable and logical responses to their arguments. Not that it bothers me of course, I have barely ever spoken to the guy, lol - more power to him, I say.
Though I am impressed I don't think I've ever triggered someone I wasn't having a direct conversation with before, lol.
In any case, this is waaay off topic now and you've derailed this conversation enough with your insults and flaming. That's pretty rude.
Dream at 0 is a problem. Since it’s a battle cry you can just return any strong battlecry to your hand the same turn. It’s a good change
such salt much BM.
They also made it so you can’t target your own minions. Double nerf, not just mana nerf