I think Big Ol' Whelp is very weak compared to what other 5-mana minions or spells can do on board. Other than that, I like this midrange-kinda take on Dragon Hunter, including the Rush-component. Only time will tell if it packs enough punch to get over the finish line.
I think the Amalgam changes are coming in the January patch, according to everything I've heard.
It's not so much that they aren't listening, or have "no idea", or are making random changes... it's that planning, testing, and implementing changes takes time. And honestly, compared to their lead time in responding to issues in the other modes, their Battlegrounds changes have come out with relatively little wait.
In other words, chill out, sugar bean, you will get your Happy Meal toy eventually, just mature and learn some patience.
Indeed; Blizzard's been real good with balancing and updating Battlegrounds, whereas Standard had to go through stale metas for months on end. I can't imagine how it must feel like developing a game where it seems like almost everyone is almost always angry at some aspect of the game.
So many tech cards have never seen play. And if your entire deck can be countered by one card, it's not a very good deck to begin with. Take that into consideration.
I'm sorry, and I usually don't do this publicly, but why is this being brushed off with a fucking warning? This is atrocious language that doesn't belong on a forum. Like, excuse me, mods, are you fucking high? At the very, very, very least delete the fucking message.
Unless I'm missing something, you need Shudder to first duplicate himself on board, before Sathrovarr's effect actually can target him. Shudderwock casts the Battlecries, so it needs another minion to cast Sathrovarr's battlecry on. Wording it as infinite is therefore not correct. You're hoping for your opponent to not remove Shudderwock from the board, and on top of that, if you manage to stick it on board, you need it to target Shudderwock in the sequence, instead of a minion generated by a Faceless Lackey, for example. The Faceless Interaction works however.
This is possible, yes, but the chances of it actually doing this is slim to none. Try to see this card as another Control tool, where you get draw against cheaper Aggro decks, potentially messing up their curve by improving your own.
On a serious note, a fun card to include in some Control-ish build of Shaman. Historically however, these kinda cards have seen very little play. Curious to see how it interacts with cards like Flobbidinous Floop and Chameleos.
On a serious note, a fun card to include in some Control-ish build of Shaman. Historically however, these kinda cards have seen very little play. Curious to see how it interacts with cards like Flobbidinous Floop and Chameleos.
I would like to take everyone back to the announcement of Saviors of Uldum, and how Highlander 'wouldn't stand a chance against Bomb Warrior', and how 'the ladder will be swarming with Warriors'. Months later, and we have had some of the strongest Highlander decks the game has seen. One of which actually had to get nerfed.
If you think this one seagull will completely destroy Highlander decks, while an entire archetype wasn't succesfull in doing so, you're extremely delusional. You'll be out there including these crappy tech-cards, while all non-highlander decks will crush you.
Actually, I kinda liked the Town Criers because they can tutor for Devoted Maniac, as those are Rush minions. If anything, get rid of the Eternium Rovers. We don't run cards like Shield Slam anyway.
I simply love what they're doing with all the classes, for once I feel like they've truly identified Class Identity. Seeing this makes me extremely hyped to play Highlander Dragon Mage.
Good deck, definitely trying this out. Would 1x Molten Breath in place of 1x Crowd Roaster or 1x Dragon Roar be any good?
Also, I'm assuming we will see more minions that Invoke, because as of right now, this deck contains 4. Looking forward to seeing what else the expansion brings that we can use. I would maybe keep the Eternium Rovers as a backup plan to maybe delete for the deck all-together if more interesting cards are being revealed.
2
I think Big Ol' Whelp is very weak compared to what other 5-mana minions or spells can do on board. Other than that, I like this midrange-kinda take on Dragon Hunter, including the Rush-component. Only time will tell if it packs enough punch to get over the finish line.
1
Ladies and gentlemen, the epitome of netdecking. No idea which cards are in the deck, just hit copy!
4
Indeed; Blizzard's been real good with balancing and updating Battlegrounds, whereas Standard had to go through stale metas for months on end. I can't imagine how it must feel like developing a game where it seems like almost everyone is almost always angry at some aspect of the game.
2
So many tech cards have never seen play. And if your entire deck can be countered by one card, it's not a very good deck to begin with. Take that into consideration.
2
I'm sorry, and I usually don't do this publicly, but why is this being brushed off with a fucking warning? This is atrocious language that doesn't belong on a forum. Like, excuse me, mods, are you fucking high? At the very, very, very least delete the fucking message.
3
Unless I'm missing something, you need Shudder to first duplicate himself on board, before Sathrovarr's effect actually can target him. Shudderwock casts the Battlecries, so it needs another minion to cast Sathrovarr's battlecry on. Wording it as infinite is therefore not correct. You're hoping for your opponent to not remove Shudderwock from the board, and on top of that, if you manage to stick it on board, you need it to target Shudderwock in the sequence, instead of a minion generated by a Faceless Lackey, for example. The Faceless Interaction works however.
2
This is possible, yes, but the chances of it actually doing this is slim to none. Try to see this card as another Control tool, where you get draw against cheaper Aggro decks, potentially messing up their curve by improving your own.
0
For the memes!
On a serious note, a fun card to include in some Control-ish build of Shaman. Historically however, these kinda cards have seen very little play. Curious to see how it interacts with cards like Flobbidinous Floop and Chameleos.
0
For the memes!
On a serious note, a fun card to include in some Control-ish build of Shaman. Historically however, these kinda cards have seen very little play. Curious to see how it interacts with cards like Flobbidinous Floop and Chameleos.
1
I would like to take everyone back to the announcement of Saviors of Uldum, and how Highlander 'wouldn't stand a chance against Bomb Warrior', and how 'the ladder will be swarming with Warriors'. Months later, and we have had some of the strongest Highlander decks the game has seen. One of which actually had to get nerfed.
If you think this one seagull will completely destroy Highlander decks, while an entire archetype wasn't succesfull in doing so, you're extremely delusional. You'll be out there including these crappy tech-cards, while all non-highlander decks will crush you.
0
Actually, I kinda liked the Town Criers because they can tutor for Devoted Maniac, as those are Rush minions. If anything, get rid of the Eternium Rovers. We don't run cards like Shield Slam anyway.
4
I simply love what they're doing with all the classes, for once I feel like they've truly identified Class Identity. Seeing this makes me extremely hyped to play Highlander Dragon Mage.
0
Good deck, definitely trying this out. Would 1x Molten Breath in place of 1x Crowd Roaster or 1x Dragon Roar be any good?
Also, I'm assuming we will see more minions that Invoke, because as of right now, this deck contains 4. Looking forward to seeing what else the expansion brings that we can use. I would maybe keep the Eternium Rovers as a backup plan to maybe delete for the deck all-together if more interesting cards are being revealed.
4
Can you imagine this card existed during the Kingsbane Rogue-days?
0
Funny how this thread devolved into the very thing Sherman sought advice for. Makes you think, don't it?