I mean I love this card cause I adore handbuff, but this needs more to be actually viable. Although +3/+3 is a really huge buff as long as you have enough dragons to hit with it.
Just a little curious if you don't mind, how many Dragons would you say need to be hit to make this card worthy?
Id say 3 . It depends tho.
If there is a taunt or lifesteal Dragon, hitting that one could be enough. Hitting an Alextrasza , is like whatever..
Likely at least 2-3. Hitting 1 basically breaks even on stats, hitting 2 helps make up for the tempo loss, and hitting 3+ is a lot of value. But like Wingdude said, if you are hitting dragons with really good keywords/effects (i.e. Lifesteal, Taunt, Rush, Charge, etc.) then it's easier to capitalize on the buffs. You also want ideally a 6-drop dragon so you can curve the buffs out.
I mean I love this card cause I adore handbuff, but this needs more to be actually viable. Although +3/+3 is a really huge buff as long as you have enough dragons to hit with it.
It can be played alongside Acolyte of Pain if you are low on cards and need to dig.
And in the general case, it's a minion that if it survives can give you a ton of value. And since you play mostly taunts it's not too hard to protect it.
It's definitely non-essential, and you can cut it if you don't have it. But that's the general reasoning why it's there.
I thought of a very similar idea, although I called it "Tactic" instead of "Use." So I like the core concept of the keyword, but idk how I feel about the specific examples.
It's obviously worse, but it's not a terrible replacement. Gets past taunt which is a plus, but it's less damage and doesn't create a threat. There's probly a better card that will take Cold Blood's place.
The classic set wasn't designed to be an evergreen set, and they have been encountering the problems with that. Keep going. Keep nerfing and banning.
Wasn't it tho
The classic set was meant as a baseline of class identity, not of power. Wild/standard were introduced years after the classic set was created, and if they knew they were going to do rotations they likely wouldn't have designed the classic set the way they did.
As long as the changes improve the game I don't have a problem with the current devs making some fundamental changes. In my opinion they've been doing a fairly good job so far, but there have been some mistakes and there is a lot more they could do (especially if they are willing to question core elements of the game's design).
I'm fine with this change (though I don't like it at all and don't think it's necessary), so long as paladin gets more board clears in the near future. Otherwise there's less of a push for paladin to go control and it'll just go further into aggro (specifically odd).
0
Likely at least 2-3. Hitting 1 basically breaks even on stats, hitting 2 helps make up for the tempo loss, and hitting 3+ is a lot of value. But like Wingdude said, if you are hitting dragons with really good keywords/effects (i.e. Lifesteal, Taunt, Rush, Charge, etc.) then it's easier to capitalize on the buffs. You also want ideally a 6-drop dragon so you can curve the buffs out.
0
I mean I love this card cause I adore handbuff, but this needs more to be actually viable. Although +3/+3 is a really huge buff as long as you have enough dragons to hit with it.
0
Huh, I didn't think they'd actually do it. Neat.
0
Probably a good change. I like Naturalize, but it's probly a pretty limiting card if it hangs around forever.
0
FINALLY. I've had a problem with this card for years and I'm so happy they are doing something about it.
0
Sure! So it has a few functions:
It's definitely non-essential, and you can cut it if you don't have it. But that's the general reasoning why it's there.
0
I thought of a very similar idea, although I called it "Tactic" instead of "Use." So I like the core concept of the keyword, but idk how I feel about the specific examples.
0
It's obviously worse, but it's not a terrible replacement. Gets past taunt which is a plus, but it's less damage and doesn't create a threat. There's probly a better card that will take Cold Blood's place.
0
The classic set was meant as a baseline of class identity, not of power. Wild/standard were introduced years after the classic set was created, and if they knew they were going to do rotations they likely wouldn't have designed the classic set the way they did.
3
As long as the changes improve the game I don't have a problem with the current devs making some fundamental changes. In my opinion they've been doing a fairly good job so far, but there have been some mistakes and there is a lot more they could do (especially if they are willing to question core elements of the game's design).
0
Honestly I'm pretty neutral about this change. I don't think it was needed, but at the same time feels fair.
2
Another nerf in this set done because of Odd/Even decks. Hmmmm.....
1
Feels like a change that's only done because Odd Rogue is a thing, not because Cold Blood itself is an unbalanced card.
0
Excellent change! Exactly how I think it should have been done.
0
I'm fine with this change (though I don't like it at all and don't think it's necessary), so long as paladin gets more board clears in the near future. Otherwise there's less of a push for paladin to go control and it'll just go further into aggro (specifically odd).