...because it bottlenecks deckbuilding, or it makes it so that the best decks to build for all of these cards will be aggro/small minion type decks which I don't think is good for diversity within the game.
Even the less successful/effective keywords like Honorable Kill or Frenzy or Corrupt could all still see play in all types of decks, and really when you look back, I don't think there has ever been a keyword that targets a certain build type so narrowly. All the others (Spellburst, Echo, Rush, Dredge, Twinspell, Tradeable, etc) are versatile in one way or another. Not to be a negative nancy, but I have my doubts right now. Thoughts?
1
Well, I suppose you could play a different class? Or one of the many, many different archetypes that druid still has from the last 5 sets. Or one of the other druid, non-dragon, archetypes that will also likely arise during this set....
I'd recommend waiting and giving the dragon archetype at least a half chance before deciding you don't like them though.
4
As I've pointed out in another post, that legal rule does not apply in this situation. That's been well established since 1895 (Coffin vs United States) that the presumption of innocence only is a thing in legal criminal charges, not in private business practices. As Activision-Blizzard is a privately owned company, it is well within their legal right to suspend him based on an allegation.
3
The only problem is your quote "everyone is innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in this situation. It has been widely established that the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which establish the Presumption of Innocence (the idea you're referring to), apply only in legal criminal cases and in no other setting. That's been the case for pretty much as long as those Amendments have been around, check out Coffin vs United States (1895) where it establishes this rule to be the case in criminal charges.
Trying to argue that "cancel culture" is happening and using the Presumption of Innocence as a supporting beam for it is silly. It's a legal rule that has never, in any circumstances, applied to private practices. Otherwise, you could run into scenarios where it's well known that an employee has committed first-degree murder but it has yet to be established in court (court takes a LONG LONG time sometimes if you didn't know). The business would be legally forced into continuing to employ and let the person work, even if they had the murder on camera.
There is nothing wrong with private practices being able to fire or suspend employees over allegations, comments, etc. It is within their legal rights that the "hands-off" government approach allows them to do. Call it "cancel culture" if that makes you feel better about it, but it's a business doing business, publicly condoning and condemning whatever they view as morally or ethically right. Capitalism, hands-off government, and freedom of businesses all explicitly allow and support a business in their right to do this. If you don't like it, argue for the government controlling all businesses.
9
Now that is a definite slippery slope fallacy argument right there. Domestic abuse and car crashes are drastically different things and making a comparison of those two is belittling domestic abuse.
As far as what Esports has to do with this, they're very much so connected. Zalae is a member of Hearthstone Esports, thus he is working underneath Hearthstone, acting as a face, a representation of Hearthstone, even if he isn't directly employed by Hearthstone. It's the same thing that the NFL has done, suspending players after child abuse or domestic violence cases. I could add several other cases but don't want to due to political charges that they can build as of right now. Anyway, it comes down to the fact that they (Zalae, in this case) is a public figure representing a privately owned company (Hearthstone, in this case) and so, thanks to laws (at least in the US) it is within every right for Activision-Blizzard to suspend Zalae, even just over allegations, as they are a private company and he is currently representing something that they do not want to represent. They're putting him on a temporary leave effectively right now due to the allegations, and should he go to court and prove true, I believe they should permanently ban him from their Esports. For now, though, he is on leave due to an allegation, and will likely be either unsuspended or banned upon trial. It's the same thing that happens through just about every other organization or business and it's well within their legal rights to do so.
5
Have been playing since about May 2014. This is DEFINITELY not THE or one of the worst metas, by any means. Sure, mage, paladin, and warlock are bopping but a couple classes have easily ruled just about every expansion other than maybe, one I think? And it's not that toxic compared to some old metas, by any means. Full charge face hunter that had you dead by turn 4-5 when all the cards were 1/3 of the stats with much weaker battlecries. That was fun, since you couldn't stop it since it was straight out of hand autopilot, I watched friends that weren't that good at Hearthstone, averaging rank 16-17 usually, and they took it to Legend at 80%+ winrate. Undertaker hunter is still the most oppressive deck of all time, and dear lord that one was toxic.
Honestly though, sure, some decks are annoying. That is the case in literally every single expansion, especially post-rotation, with certain decks dominating it. And yeah, some of them aren't fun or interactive to play against. Again, happens most expansions. But like, overall? Barrens is probably middle of the road, average on post-expansion meta. It's what I, and you should, have been expecting. And tbh, I'd rather face a Tickatus warrior or secret paladin where I have a chance and can sort of do something other than just watch a hunter burst me for 30 to the face by turn 5, all out of hand where I can't do anything except play chillwind yeti as my best card.
1
Blizzard has confirmed that you will be able to dust old Ysera for full dust compensation due to her dreams getting changed/nerfed.
Quote from Alec Dawson - "There will be a refund for the old Ysera since her Dream cards have changed."
1
When the card was first revealed, Blizzard stated that you only had to have all of the initial amount summoned in order for the next group to be summoned. In this case, the initial 5 have to die in order for the next 7 (or maximum amount) to be summoned. That is the intended function of the card. Also, the card text itself says "If they all die", not "if all seven die", meaning that only the summoned ones need to die. So yes, it still works if you only summon 1.