Hearthpwn

Quote from FortyDust >>

it's true. This deck now has no unfavorable match-ups at all.

It's basically an aggressive tempo deck with midrange-style removal and infinite endgame value. In other words, the best parts of all archetypes with none of the drawbacks.

 It'll still be unfavorable vs quest warlock, libram paladin and quest rogue

I am 100% against nerfing classic and basic cards to the point that they are unplayable.  Which is exactly what this nerf would make shadowstep.

It's fine as it is, rogue isn't in a dominant position at the moment and shadowstep has never been the reason behind nerf being OP in the past.  This is just a salt post.

That's what I was thinking too.  It serves a similar role by giving the paladin some more protection in the mid-game (though as a divine shield taunt rather than through heals) but also gives you extra tempo with how easy it is to discount.  It's possible we may still run both, but I was planning on replacing amber watcher with this card myself.

I could honestly see this fitting into either a pure/libram paladin deck or a galakrond priest deck. 

The paladin is pretty obvious, you're playing librams all game long and it won't be too hard to get this card down to 3 or 4 mana.  With how easy it is to chain off librams once you get their cost reduced, it will be almost guaranteed that this card is 0 mana later on in the game.

Galakrond priest doesn't get going as quickly on this front, but you still have renew, apotheosis, and some builds running grave rune and psyche split.  Not to mention synergies with Sethekk Veilweiver and all of the other randomly generated cards you end up getting throughout a match.  Wouldn't be too tough to get this down to 3 or 4 mana.  And honestly, even at 5 this card is still playable.  That being said I'm not sure it will be impactful enough to make it into the final build, but still pretty good vs aggro.

Good card all around.

Quote from simon25_17 >>

 Hype for this expansion died on day 3. One of the worst meta ever due to bad balance changes and the addition of a broken class. We literally played 3 decks in Europe for almost 3 months (2 of them were basically the same decks as DoD with 4 new cards), all of this happend with a rotation of cards to wild. If you didn't you're either lying or your MMR was so low you were playing with people who got no arms.

 I'm pretty sure OP is referring to how the meta is post-nerfs, not how it was on expansion launch.  

Quote from Castiel88 >>

Quote from Inzan1ty >>

Quote from Star_Forge >>

Clearly you weren't playing during the Un'goro meta, the most healthiest and most fun that we've ever had it and probably will ever have.

 

 

Nah, I think I'am good.

 I still remember how 90% of the playerbase called it shit, worst quest, terribad etc. and then it came out and destroyed every other deck. It was hit by two separate massive nerfs and it was still being used in tournaments after that. This card for me mainly serves as a reminder how utterly wrong people can be about how good a card is if they haven't seen it in play. 

 I don't think the issue was ever with it being overpowered, just that it was extremely polarizing.  You either played aggro and quest rogue was basically a free win, or you played a slow value/combo/control deck and got crushed by it.  I think I was playing some sort of zoo warlock when that expansion came out, and I don't think I ever lost to that deck.  Something like that where winning or losing just depends on which class/deck you're playing is horrible design.

Highlander hunter might be a bit too dominant now, but otherwise I think the meta is pretty good.  I thought the meta was pretty good before the most recent round of nerfs, even.  Pretty much every class now has a playable archetype (and many have multiple), nor is it highly polarized.  Even if you queue into a bad matchup, there's still a good chance you can win.  It doesn't feel like you might as well just concede because you queued up against the wrong class.

I'm a little bit more skeptical about this card.  Sure, playing it with Brann and getting two 8/8s is pretty insane, but also perhaps a bit overkill.  And the other uses for it look kind of bad.

If you play it to copy Zixor, you'll end up getting two Zixor primes which makes your highlander cards pretty useless until you can manage to draw one.  Both end up on the bottom of the deck?  RIP hunter.  Playing just on turn 3 is pretty mediocre, since it's body is fairly weak and it doesn't have any impact on the game.  Highlander hunter typically wants to curve out well and build up board presence, and this card just doesn't do that.  Buffing two minions you may not even draw by just +1/+1?  That doesn't cut it.

Now, I think this potentially could be a great card if there is a more beast centric build of highlander hunter.  That way it would be a solid card whether you drop it on 3 or if you play it on turn 10 or later in combination with Brann.  It kinda depends on what other cards get revealed, and if switching out some of the current HL hunter cards for more beasts will actually lead to a better deck.