Actually that statement is 100% true. A spell that costs 0 and draws a card would be played in almost every deck.
No it wouldn't. That's one more answer taken out of your control deck.
I agree that there are some decks that would love it for the spell synergy, but I would guess that most decks would NOT run it as it replaces an answer, a win condition, or som other key card. Deck slots are too tight to believe a card waste on cycling would be pounced on.
Spend some time and look up why Far Sight is a bad card, get back to me.
Far sight is a bad card for several reasons, none of which have anything to do with drawing through your deck too quickly. If you have played any other card game ever you would know why a 0 mana draw card would be played by almost every deck. It would make your deck smaller so you would go into fatigue quicker in Hearthstone, but the added consistency would give you a big advantage and less games would go to fatigue. Every deck has win conditions, and if you don't draw them it makes it harder to win. Anything that helps you draw your win condition more consistently when you need it is going to see a lot of play.
If there was a spell that said "(0) draw a card" then almost every deck would play it. Having a smaller deck is really good for most decks as it makes them more consistent.
LOL. I assume this is sarcasm.
Actually that statement is 100% true. A spell that costs 0 and draws a card would be played in almost every deck.
I see where you're going. But the problem I was originally referring to is that, in super-late-game, Wild Growth actual becomes 2 mana draw a card.
Is that worth running in a deck? Assuming most 2 mana draw effects have an extra effect, I'd argue.
I wasn't really replying to your argument, but I can still answer your question. Wild growth's effect in the early game that puts you ahead of your opponent makes it worth playing, if there was no drawback then it would be super OP (the drawback being that late game it is a 2 mana draw card). It is a pretty bad top deck late game, but this card would be as well. I don't see why people are trying to compare and contrast these two cards to decide which is better because I think if this card is played it will be played in a deck that also runs wild growths so you won't have to choose between the two.
If there was a spell that said "(0) draw a card" then almost every deck would play it. Having a smaller deck is really good for most decks as it makes them more consistent.
LOL. I assume this is sarcasm.
Actually that statement is 100% true. A spell that costs 0 and draws a card would be played in almost every deck.
That's an interesting way of looking at it. I'm not entirely convinced, but I don't feel quite as strongly now either. I still think it would be a mistake to put it into a ramp deck because it will be a wasted turn because the ramp up is going to be removed almost instantly (as opposed to sticking with Wild Growth).
I think that you can still run the wild growths with this. If it gets removed then no big deal, at least it traded for something and kept you from taking damage to the face. If it lives, well then you just got a turn or two of ramp with a body attached to it. If you have this and wild growth on turn two then you would play wild growth just like you would anyway. Overall I think it might take the place of zombie chow as it will do a lot of the same things (low drop trading fodder, good to play into a mirror entity, ect.) while also possibly having some synergy with the deck.
There will be times where you would rather have the chow (like if you open wild growth), so only time will tell if this will be overall better than chow in druid, but i think we will see it played some in constructed.
I have mixed feelings about Zombie Chow having lost a few matches because the opponent collected the +5 health when I did not expect it to happen, so I feel its a risky card anyway. Brilliant at the start of the game, a potential liability to draw it towards the end of the game and a real risk to winning if played late. That's my experience anyway.
That makes it the perfect card to start feeling out while you wait for the expansion. Every time you draw it make a mental not of whether it would have been better to draw this card instead. Make sure to count how often the opponent can remove it early, and how often it can survive till turn 3 (especially if you draw it on turn 2 and have to play it on turn 2).
It's not a perfect system to see exactly what would have happened, but when you can't actually just put the other card in right now it is a pretty good way to get a feel for it without changing your deck at all.
I think we're talking cross purpose here. I wouldn't remove wrath or wild growth from a Druid deck to put this in. Consider, if you are building a ramp deck, why risk a temporary ramp? Remember there are only 30 cards you can put in a deck. So what Druid cards would you remove for it? It's a tough question because I don't rate this card at all.
I would take out zombie chow personally. Imagine that in your scenario. Would you rather have zombie chow and a bunch of 4+ drops in your hand or this guy and the 4+ drops in your hand? If the opponent can't remove this card then you are golden and can play your high drops quicker, if they can then are you in worse shape than you would have been with the zombie chow? Obviously every situation will be different depending on the variables in play at the time, but in this exact situation I would rather have this than zombie chow.
I wouldn't remove wrath or wild growth either, you can run both and this card, they are not mutually exclusive.
I definitely would not do that. Wrath is too useful. But it's what is probably in a Druid's hand that he can play at that point in time (assuming something is on the board), sometimes played just to cycle cards when you have a bad hand (1 damage, draw a card).
I don't think you understand, you can only have the card in your hand that this card replaced, that's what I'm trying to say. In this scenario your two wraths are in the deck, and the only card that could be in place of this is the card you took out for this. If the person would have wrath in their hypothetical hand hand of 4+drops instead of this guy, then that means they had to have taken wrath out to put this guy in. I would never take out wrath, I would have taken out something else like possibly zombie chow.
what card could have been in its place that would have been better to play on turn 2-3 when you have your hypothetical hand of 4+drops?
Wrath probably, assuming the opponent has made the mistake of putting something on the board that could be a threat or the hand drawn is not too strong. 1 damage and a card draw is nice and 3 damage is almost certainly a removal.
You would have taken out a wrath for this guy? i would think you would want to keep both wraths in the deck.
What about playing your own Piloted Shredder on turn 3?
Or what about stopping ignoring the posts that explains why this card could be played?
What about it dying and you have no 3 drops to play and a hand full of 4+ drops?
If you are running one of these and are still running both wild growths (which is what I assume people would do), what card could have been in its place that would have been better to play on turn 2-3 when you have your hypothetical hand of 4+drops?
If you think this card is crap, I guess you don't understand it.
Just like Troggzor and Dragon Consort, right?
This card is just a bad Mechwarper at best.
Do you seriously think that Dragon Consort is a bad card? Like honestly? Dragon Consort is a great card, there's just not enough good dragons in the game right now for it to be played.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
⚙
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.
They are comparing it to zombie chow because that is likely what would have to be dropped for this card.
Far sight is a bad card for several reasons, none of which have anything to do with drawing through your deck too quickly. If you have played any other card game ever you would know why a 0 mana draw card would be played by almost every deck. It would make your deck smaller so you would go into fatigue quicker in Hearthstone, but the added consistency would give you a big advantage and less games would go to fatigue. Every deck has win conditions, and if you don't draw them it makes it harder to win. Anything that helps you draw your win condition more consistently when you need it is going to see a lot of play.
I wasn't really replying to your argument, but I can still answer your question. Wild growth's effect in the early game that puts you ahead of your opponent makes it worth playing, if there was no drawback then it would be super OP (the drawback being that late game it is a 2 mana draw card). It is a pretty bad top deck late game, but this card would be as well. I don't see why people are trying to compare and contrast these two cards to decide which is better because I think if this card is played it will be played in a deck that also runs wild growths so you won't have to choose between the two.
Actually that statement is 100% true. A spell that costs 0 and draws a card would be played in almost every deck.
I think that you can still run the wild growths with this. If it gets removed then no big deal, at least it traded for something and kept you from taking damage to the face. If it lives, well then you just got a turn or two of ramp with a body attached to it. If you have this and wild growth on turn two then you would play wild growth just like you would anyway. Overall I think it might take the place of zombie chow as it will do a lot of the same things (low drop trading fodder, good to play into a mirror entity, ect.) while also possibly having some synergy with the deck.
There will be times where you would rather have the chow (like if you open wild growth), so only time will tell if this will be overall better than chow in druid, but i think we will see it played some in constructed.
That makes it the perfect card to start feeling out while you wait for the expansion. Every time you draw it make a mental not of whether it would have been better to draw this card instead. Make sure to count how often the opponent can remove it early, and how often it can survive till turn 3 (especially if you draw it on turn 2 and have to play it on turn 2).
It's not a perfect system to see exactly what would have happened, but when you can't actually just put the other card in right now it is a pretty good way to get a feel for it without changing your deck at all.
I would take out zombie chow personally. Imagine that in your scenario. Would you rather have zombie chow and a bunch of 4+ drops in your hand or this guy and the 4+ drops in your hand? If the opponent can't remove this card then you are golden and can play your high drops quicker, if they can then are you in worse shape than you would have been with the zombie chow? Obviously every situation will be different depending on the variables in play at the time, but in this exact situation I would rather have this than zombie chow.
I wouldn't remove wrath or wild growth either, you can run both and this card, they are not mutually exclusive.
I don't think you understand, you can only have the card in your hand that this card replaced, that's what I'm trying to say. In this scenario your two wraths are in the deck, and the only card that could be in place of this is the card you took out for this. If the person would have wrath in their hypothetical hand hand of 4+drops instead of this guy, then that means they had to have taken wrath out to put this guy in. I would never take out wrath, I would have taken out something else like possibly zombie chow.
You would have taken out a wrath for this guy? i would think you would want to keep both wraths in the deck.
If you are running one of these and are still running both wild growths (which is what I assume people would do), what card could have been in its place that would have been better to play on turn 2-3 when you have your hypothetical hand of 4+drops?
Do you seriously think that Dragon Consort is a bad card? Like honestly? Dragon Consort is a great card, there's just not enough good dragons in the game right now for it to be played.