Hearthpwn

Overheal = heal more than you can. So healing a full health minion always overheals. For example, healing a minion for 2 that has only taken 1 damage, will overheal it, because it can only be healed for 1. It's that simple.

Not quite. It costs 4 Mana instead of 3 Mana. That greatly reduces its combo potential. Still very strong though!

If it's consistent with other such cards, then there isn't a max on this.

A single Vampiric Blood can give you +2/+2, which is very likely to happen regularly. Now imagine a Blood Boil, which can give you +7/+7 if it hits a full board. There's some really good potential for this to give you a huge Lifesteal minion in the mid-game. Besides, you can even wait a bit before using your second attack just to capitalize on the minion. And you can use it in conjunction with Unholy Frenzy very easily to heal up a lot and potentially resummon it! This weapon has insane control potential!

Screaming Banshee + Horn of Winter + Reno Jackson = a potential 30/30 (or much bigger) unit. For the memes

Like you ever want to draw 9 cards.

Using the card for 4 Mana would cost you a turn. Now it's always good late game. 1 Mana draw a double statted taunt is a good card. The old one wasn't worth it. Whether it helps Warrior enough? I doubt it.

Astalor's design is terrible, in my professional opinion. If its final form only hit minions, the card would still be played in some decks and might be a fun addition to the game. But in its current form? No. A card with such a high power level should've had a deck requirement at least. And in Druid and Rogue it's just frustrating to play against.

It is obvious that they wanted to add a card that would really sell the Manathirst keyword, but I doubt that Astalor really made anyone appreciate that mechanic.

Quote from Scorpyon >>

Quote from Yollowolf2 >>

Quote from Scorpyon >>

Quote from Yollowolf2 >>

Quote from Scorpyon >>

Quote from Hawk_tr >>

Just stop cards from hitting face. Nerf astalor and shockspitter and other cards to hit enemy minions .

 But then you will have the problem that the only ways of winning feasibly are board damage from minions or possibly fatigue, which then makes the whole game become stale and less fun for everyone. 
Having unexpected and surprising ways to win a game is what makes the game fun and more interactive and immersive.

 Unexpected and surprising 40 dmg from shockspitters or lets say our beloved Denathrius back then, way more interactive than board trading. 

 You are literally interacting with the opposing player rather than ignoring them and only attacking minions. Its the very definition of “interactivity”. Not sure what more you want. Lol

 ??? So by ,,opponent" u mean their ONLY their face? Their board is not ,,opposing player"
Damn, that's next lvl. 
So if 2 burn decks match, and noone is gonna play ANY minion, both just cast spells at enemy face, that's the most interaction you can get in hearthstone? 

 So are you saying BOTH are in actual fact, versions of “interaction” then? Just so we’re clear… 

Interaction in card games traditionally means you go back and forth in terms of power, which generally means board presence. It's a constant battle to get an edge over the other player until one overwhelms the other. The least amount of interactivity comes from combos that bypass all interaction by just winning the game outright.

An uninteractive combo sometimes only materializes after interaction. Luckily there's no card in the game that just wins you the game by drawing it, without any prerequisites. But the road towards finalizing a combo can be highly uninteractive as well. For example, Shockspitter Hunter cares very little about what it hits with its weapons. Hit stuff, discover Shockspitters, win. Quest Priest cares very little about which cards it plays. Play cards with right mana cost, draw/discover/clear, win with a 99% uninteractive card.

When there's barely any interaction between players, each player is just playing their own minigame against the clock. They're barely countering each other's plays. They're just fishing for their own cards and trying to complete their own quest. And then, frustratingly, one player just wins before the other does. Hurrah.

That's what (non-)interaction is.

Quote from Scorpyon >>

Quote from LockAndLoad >>

Quote from Scorpyon >>

Quote from Hawk_tr >>

Just stop cards from hitting face. Nerf astalor and shockspitter and other cards to hit enemy minions .

 But then you will have the problem that the only ways of winning feasibly are board damage from minions or possibly fatigue, which then makes the whole game become stale and less fun for everyone. 
Having unexpected and surprising ways to win a game is what makes the game fun and more interactive and immersive.

 Everyone? Kindly speak for yourself. I love board-based battles. I'm super happy when I play a control deck and face another board-oriented control deck. I really dislike OTK decks, because then players are just playing their own single player minigames against a clock.

 It is just a common phrase. No need to take it personally.

 Just pointing out you state your opinions like facts. You say "unexpected and surprising ways to win a game make the game fun and more interactive", but OTKs like with Astalor Druid and Shockspitter Hunter aren't interactive at all. Surprising, powerful board swings can be really strong, but at least tend to be interactive, because you can fight back. There's no fighting back against a combo that just kills you outright when your opponent has finished their minigame.

I'd very much be in favor of having cards like Astalor only affect minions. That way they'd be strong, but wouldn't fuel more OTK decks.

Quote from Scorpyon >>

Quote from Hawk_tr >>

Just stop cards from hitting face. Nerf astalor and shockspitter and other cards to hit enemy minions .

 But then you will have the problem that the only ways of winning feasibly are board damage from minions or possibly fatigue, which then makes the whole game become stale and less fun for everyone. 
Having unexpected and surprising ways to win a game is what makes the game fun and more interactive and immersive.

 Everyone? Kindly speak for yourself. I love board-based battles. I'm super happy when I play a control deck and face another board-oriented control deck. I really dislike OTK decks, because then players are just playing their own single player minigames against a clock.

Sometimes you steam right to Legend, sometimes you get bad luck and get stuck for a while. It's random. I've experienced no evidence of anything other than pure RNG.

If you believe it's "statistically impossible" for you to experience this, then post proper evidence. For now I'm 99% sure it's just your frustration talking.

Very good question. Over the years Blizzard's communication doesn't align with Hearthstone's game design. They keep saying they don't like uninteractive win conditions, yet keep pumping out OTK combos. They say they don't like charge and then they add Mr Smite. It's strange.

Your experience is subjective, as you mention. Just check the deck statistics on this very website to get an accurate, objective answer to your question. I face quite a few rogues at platinum and expect to face them all the way to legend rank. It's a good deck, but my DK has a 75+% win rate against it, so I don't mind. I also face DK, Priest, Paladin and Druid consistently.

While I agree that DK has more useless cards than any other class, I do think it's a healthy counter to thief decks. I reckon it's best to keep the steal mechanics the same. If thief decks truly need help, we may see the addition of cards that allow you to reroll cards from other classes. The addition of new cards and mechanics is the standard way to balance the game. Until then, it is how it is.