• 1

    posted a message on GvG Power Creep
    Quote from Teskeyben 

    There being more good cards to play does not mean that the cards that were always bad got any more bad. It is just more evident that they are bad.

    Bad cards get more bad when there's more good cards to play in Arena.  More good cards means your opponent is more likely to draft good cards, which means if you happen to draft nothing but bad cards, you're more screwed.

    Power creep comes at different levels, and as someone pointed out earlier, maybe it would be better to call this level where it's not yet game breaking "power crawl".

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on GvG Power Creep

    Is it power creep when the cards being "replaced" already see next to 0 play? Honestly, the only card on that list I see with any regularity is the Priestess of Elune.

    Maybe you're unfamiliar with Arena? Even so the answer to your question is yes. When new cards make old cards go from "next to 0 play" to 0 play, technically that's power creep.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on GvG Power Creep

    Dr. Boom is strictly worse than War Golem once the meta becomes nothing but Nerub'ar Weblords and Mind Control Techs, ya fools.

    Outside of that... yeah, it's hard to ever pick War Golem over Dr. Boom.  
    Here's a list of possible cards that will be potentially power creeped by GvG not including class cards since VoidwalkerGoldshire Footman, etc.:

    • Dr. Boom > War Golem – This is the most obvious "strictly better" case example despite the aforementioned drawback.
    • Bomb LobberStormpike Commando – The GvG card has a better stat distribution and does twice as much damage albeit it's [controllably] random and can't hit face. 'Tis a weak example.
    • Lil' ExorcistTauren Warrior – The GvG card is a much better swing card than the Tauren could ever hope to be nor do I ever see the Tauren live long enough to get enraged.
    • Annoy-o-TronFrostwolf Grunt – The GvG card has -1 attack but +1 Divine Shield and it's a mech. It's likely to still do 2 damage to minions that attack into it, and on such occasion, can stop King Krush for 2 turns.
    • Antique HealbotPriestess of Elune – My weakest example, but I would rather pay less to heal more than to pick the Priestess. 

    Just to clarify my definition of power creep, it's the card to always pick over another similar choice.  So far the GvG cards have not been 100% strictly better than any supposed counterparts, but I will agree to there being a slight inflation in general card quality with this set.  I'm very curious to find out what currently used cards fall off the face of the meta, and if there's old unused cards that jump in it when GvG comes.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on What's the smallest change to the game that could break it?

    Tracking allows you to choose between 4 cards.

    Battlecry minions can't be played if their battlecries can't be triggered.

    Secrets stay active on your turn.

    Execute can target Artosis's own minions

    Posted in: General Deck Building
  • 1

    posted a message on New Card - Steamwheedle Sniper

    I'm very disappointed with this card's text. Since Ben Brode confirmed that this only affects the Hunter class then why not just say "Your Steady Shot can target minions".  Why make it needlessly confusing?

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on New Card - Lil' Exorcist Discussion

    I wonder if Blood Knight will run more or less often than this card once GVG comes out.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New Card - Scarlet Purifier

    I want to point out that this ability will not target minions who have been silenced, as they will no longer have deathrattle.  It's still a good card though.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on New Card - Foe Reaper 4000

    Hey, it's the MTG equivalent of trample.  A part of me was hoping that Blizzard would turn this into a new card mechanic. Nothing necessarily this powerful, but something like "Splash Damage +X (Minions damaged by this minion also have adjacent minions take X damage.)"

    Regardless, this is literally the first neutral card that deals with your opponent's adjacent minions, meaning nearly all match-ups now should have to pay attention to minion placement.  Placing taunts on the sides would be a start.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Mind Control Tech in current meta (Nov 2014)

    In theory, Mind Control Tech is insane value if you can pull off the battlecry. If at worst you get a 1/1 with it,  you still have a total of 4/4 in stats for 3 mana plus a removal of one of your opponents minions.  

    I say the problem with MC Tech though is that it doesn't beat AoE removal.  By the time your opponent has 4 minions, it's usually the best play to remove all of them or steal their best minion, which you can't bank on doing.  It's also one of the worst feelings to play MC Tech to your opponents 3 minions even though you'll otherwise be overrun waiting for the 4th minion they may never play.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Healing Totem Bug
    Quote from Tahladnas »

    My point is, this game is anything but stable so i won't be surprised by bugs here and there. Also one of the reasons i'm still reluctant to spend money on this game.

    True there are many bugs with the game, but its card logic engine is known to be extremely consistent.  Never have I seen a game decided based on a card not doing what it was intended to do.  The only noticeable exception I can think of is Kel'Thuzad resurrecting itself after a Ragnaros hit, which the developers do admit is a bug.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Apparently Blizzard wants competitive Hearthstone to be a complete joke

    If I remember correctly, during the China 2014 qualifier for Blizzcon, their tournament format was quite different.  It was Last Hero Standing Best of 5, but instead of each player submitting 4 decks and their opponent bans a class, each player gets to submit up to 9 decks comprising of at least 4 classes.  The opponent still gets to ban a class and the player still can't use a class more than once, but the losing player now has a lot more options at their disposal in the follow-up match.

    Effectively, this format was a lot like having a sideboard, and personally, I find this format very entertaining since it allowed players to create hard counter decks without the need to add versatility to every deck they submit.  Having that ability created a whole different tournament meta, which inherently took much more skill to navigate, and I really wish this format would be adopted more.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on New Card - Jeeves

    Timing is everything.  For it to say at the end of the turn instead of the beginning means that you get to draw from it first.  Your opponent only draws from it if they let it live and they have less than 3 cards in hand.  If they let it live, you get to draw from it again.

    For as long as it is in play, you will always be a turn ahead in card advantage even if your opponent manages to draw from it themselves. At worst, each player draws 4 cards a turn as oppose to the usual 1 card with you starting first.  Seeing how Arcane Intellect is used in nearly every Mage deck, this card costs 1 mana more and baits out a removal. Coldlight Oracle still finds play occasionally in very reasonable decks.  I find it hard to imagine that this card is garbage especially in decks built around it.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on New card - Gnomish Experimenter discussion

    Just to repost it: https://twitter.com/bdbrode/status/531697921579028480

    Given that Ben Brode says that the chicken from this card is "new" compared to this Chicken suggests that even the art is new, which I'm not a fan of if that's the case.  All cards with the same name should have the same art IMO.  It's bad enough that I can't specify a Treant out of the 3+ that already exist in the game in this forum. Just saying.

    The Treants: http://www.hearthpwn.com/cards?filter-name=Treant

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 6

    posted a message on New Card - Jeeves
    Quote from Ogobum »

    It's funny how people try to predict the effect of this card on the current meta in terms of control warrior and aggro types when in reality the current meta will be shattered into a million pieces by GvG.  There's no guarantee that control warrior will even be a thing anymore after GvG comes out.

    There seems to be a good number people like you who says things like this.  The current meta is all we know. Why can't we talk about the card in terms of it? What's even the point of this thread then?  Not to mention, we're already saying this card will change the meta. Not to mention, we are the meta. What we say here represent what people will think is initially good about GvG.  The control warrior will still be attempted when GvG first comes.  And then the meta will gradually change to what actually works in GvG.  

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 4

    posted a message on New Card - Jeeves

    Wow, at first I thought this card sucked until I realized it says at end of turn.  This card will gain value even if it just draws one card let alone 3.  This card is even good against other aggro decks considering that you get to draw from it first before you opponent can, and for your opponent to benefit from it, they can't kill it, letting you play your hand and draw from it again.  In combination with Mechwarper, this just becomes insane value.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • To post a comment, please login or register a new account.