Petition to buff Sir Finley of the Sands

Until his release, the card was debated between skepticals and those who saw potential in this card.

Turns out the card's main weakness is how early you can draw and play it: you need to play the upgraded HP at least a few times, in order to get value from the card.

Which is a bummer, comparing it to the other Highlander cards.

So why not buffing the guy?

A) There are many ways, but an easy one to me is just giving the Aldor Attendant treatment and buff Sir Finley of the Sands to a 1/3 for (1). This would give two benefits:

1. It could be tutored much more easily: Call to Adventure, Crystology.
2. It could curve out much better, with an upgraded HP slapped directly on t2.
3. It would still be bound to card draw RNG AND Discover RNG (so you can never deckbuild with soecific HP synergies).

B) Another option would be to turn his effect into a Start of the Game. It would reduce the adaptability of the choice, since you still don't know your opponent besides their class, but I think it would still be a great improvement, and smart players would still be able to predict correctly the best choice, or at least the beneficial jack-of-all-trades choice. This would remove the card draw RNG, leaving the Discover RNG only.

Given the Discover nature of the card (3 random options of 10) I am fairly sure there is hardly any way to make the card suddenly broken (you can never build the deck around specific HP anyway), so any buff would be pretty safe, and it would give Highlander Paladin a chance to shine a bit more, at least as an offmeta deck, and we all know Highlander is always a favored archetype for many, so making it better viable on more classes would be a really smart move.

Further arguments in favor of buffing him here:

Finally, The fact Paladin may benefit more from other cards has nothing to do with buffing Finley. It's a false conflict (and not an argument here).

So what do you think?

Do you see better ways to buff Sir Finley of the Sands as he deserves?

Nah, I think the card will get better the bigger the card pool gets he has enough of a pay off in my opinion. 

The card is fine in the its current iteration. It provides a buffed hero power, which is just broken considering that dhunter's buffed hp is 2 attack for 1 mana.

Another argument against it is purely future card design and balances. If it gets too consistent, then devs might just want to avoid those very powerful unconditional cards for paladin in future expansions, not even mentioning its potential in wild.

Also, lets be honest, paladins state of affairs right now is the lack of tempo swing cards, like Rotnest Drake or, dare I say it, [Hearthstone Card (the lurker from below) Not Found], or even just a decent rush minion. Buffing sir finley will boost highlander's paladin chances, but nothing else. Its best to simply address paladin's core issue, than just buffing one very conditional card.

Quote From dapperdog

The card is fine in the its current iteration. It provides a buffed hero power, which is just broken considering that dhunter's buffed hp is 2 attack for 1 mana.

Another argument against it is purely future card design and balances. If it gets too consistent, then devs might just want to avoid those very powerful unconditional cards for paladin in future expansions, not even mentioning its potential in wild.

Also, lets be honest, paladins state of affairs right now is the lack of tempo swing cards, like Rotnest Drake or, dare I say it, the lurker from below, or even just a decent rush minion. Buffing sir finley will boost highlander's paladin chances, but nothing else. Its best to simply address paladin's core issue, than just buffing one very conditional card.

Its potential in Wild would still be very limitedly reliable, given the Discover nature of the card, which is also bound to Highlander restriction, let's not forget it (Odd DH is a full-blown synergic deck built around the HP, Sir Finley can't do that, not even wit the Start of the Game buff suggestion).

I mean, in Wild we have stuff like [Hearthstone Card (Raza the Unchained) Not Found] and Shadowreaper Anduin, a buffed Sir Finley of the Sands pales in front of those (Raza buffs ANY HP in the game, Sir Finley binds you to his choices, and DK Anduin is easily repeatable with any cards, while upgraded HP is not) Or in front of Kazakus himself tbh, who is much more versatile with his double layer of Discovery.

Let's be honest here: there's zero chances that buffing Sir Finley of the Sands gets him even close to the consistency and power level that the devs agreed to provide to many cards in this game, Highlander or not. As long as it is a Discover that randomly offers 3 of 10 options.

And buffs don't really clash with each other. I mean, just look at the great Boomsday Buff patch: most buffs went completely forgotten and didn't really contribute to their classes, in either modes. So what Paladin needs the most right now in Standard is beyond the point of buffing this specific card.

Its the textbook definition of a card thats very strong but the class is not suited for it. Paladin needs fixing, this card itself is very good

Imagine this card in any class except Druid and Paladin

I agree with Dapperdog's point that buffing Finley is too narrow: it only helps singleton and murloc decks, and I am not personally interested in making either more prevalent for a long time. 

I have a hunch that paladin's real problem isn't even that it is especially weak, but rather that the strongest classes of the last few months are natural counters to it (I'm looking at you rogue and demon hunter). Admittedly, Finley giving you a different hero power that isn't dealt with more efficiently by theirs is helpful in this regard, but nevertheless I think it is healthier for paladin to wait for other classes with more favourable match-ups to take over.

I remember reading somewhere when the card was launched that they indeed originally intended on making all the explorers the exact same stats and mana cost (except brann which also underwent modifications pre release) as their previous iterations. 
Finley was indeed intended to be  1 cost 1/3 but they changed it at the last moment because they felt it would be too swingy if played on turn one. 

I don’t think it would’ve been that much stronger as they thought but I would like to see it go to one mana to give highlander pally any possible tool it can get to be atleast mildly competitive.

Quote From Zeratia

Its the textbook definition of a card thats very strong but the class is not suited for it. Paladin needs fixing, this card itself is very good

 

Imagine this card in any class except Druid and Paladin

This times infinity. Certain decks can afford to run highlander versions without any payoff cards except Zephrys (think highlander aggro warrior of the previous expansion). Now imagine Finley in that deck. Having it in the mulligan will boost the deck's winrate to toxic amounts (think Prince Keleseth and Barnes prior to their rotation and nerf, respectively).

Finley isn't weak. The entire class it is in, is. Paladin has been struggling to find a viable archetype for multiple expansions now. Making it a highlander-build would be even more challenging.

Oh, and start of the game should never again be printed on a card. Especially when it's an effect as powerful as upgrading a hero power. 

Sir Finley of the Sands is fine. I have a lot of experience with playing it, and it feels great as it is. And because paladin doesn't have that many 1 drops, you can easely pull it with Call to Adventure. 

The problem is that it's a Paladin card. Paladin has mostly bad cards in standard for quite a while now. In wild highlander Pally is a pretty good off-meta deck! (from my experience) But that's mainly because paladin has a lot of good cards in wild. Paladin basicly needs good new cards that actually SUPPORTS EXISTING archetypes. (That are NOT murloc paladin!)

The reason Sir Finley of the Sands is not a 1 mana 1/3 like the wild card Sir Finley Mrrgglton is because Sir Finley of the Sands would have been way too strong at 1 mana. If it was 1 atk, Sir Finley of the Sands would have been way too toxic, and nerfed withing a week.

I think the main reason Finley is worse than the other Highlander cards is because his ability is best used for tempo on curve. All of the other Highlander cards have big swingy effects which are mainly used in the late-game for value. This means that you want to draw him a lot earlier in the game than all of the other Highlander cards, and when you don't you are at a big disadvantage. I think making it a start of game effect is an interesting way to solve this problem, but start of game effects are always a bit scary. I would be fine just making him a 1 mana 1/3 so that he can be tutored with Crystology.

For Standard:

Even assuming you got a 1/3 in t1 every game (which is impossible, chances are lower than 50% if I remember well), there is no way it can turn as strong as Prince Keleseth was: because no upgraded hero power can be as overwhelming as cards, especially when you can't get the HP you want 100% of the time (so there is always a double RNG filter: card draw AND Discover).

Moreover, Highlander restriction is much harder than Prince restriction. And Prince was deemed oppressive by many, but it was never nerfed.

For Wild:

Same as above: have you ever seen Highlander Tempo (Tempo because Sir Finley of the Sands can provide survival, but it can't provide Value to fight toe to toe against a real Control deck) decks toppling the meta? Secret Mage tried and failed, it never became meta, and for a reason: Tempo requires consistency, and Highlander disrupts that, no matter what.

There will always be cards that are more optimal than others, and for Consistency of Tempo you must use both copies of the optimal cards, and ditch the others. Reno decks improve with the release of key Reno cards, while if the generic pool improves, the Doubleton deck is generally better than its Reno counterpart: ie Control Cubelock vs Renolock right now (despite Warlock having insane legendary cards).

I am really baffled at people being against a Sir Finley of the Sands at 1/3 for (1), both in Standard and even moreso in Wild, where Reno Paladin is nowhere near meta, less so a dangerous deck for meta balance. It would just become slightly more satisfying to play for offmeta junkies...

A option is viable, B is too oppressive.

As a partial OT, following all the replies that argued that sir finley is fine, I actually crafted the card and built this Tempo Reno Paladin in Wild. It doesn't make me change my mind over the necessity of a buff on Sir Finley of the Sands, and the card itself performs quite poorly even in this deck, which is basically built around him (it's Aggro/Tempo because slower Midrange doesn't exist in Wild, not without OTK or so much Value that Paladin can only dream about), but overall the deck is quite good.

Quote From RavenSunHS

As a partial OT, following all the replies that argued that sir finley is fine, I actually crafted the card and built this Tempo Reno Paladin in Wild. It doesn't make me change my mind over the necessity of a buff on Sir Finley of the Sands, and the card itself performs quite poorly even in this deck, which is basically built around him (it's Aggro/Tempo because slower Midrange doesn't exist in Wild, not without OTK or so much Value that Paladin can only dream about), but overall the deck is quite good.

 

While lots of upgraded hero powers are useful for aggressive decks, the whole archetype fairly fundamentally goes against using your hero power lots of times so I'm not too surprised Finley wasn't that powerful in it. I am interested in whether Reno was useful most of the time; I suppose he is at least an insurance policy against aggro decks that get a better start.

The only part of your entire argument I have any real issue with is the use of the word 'necessity'. This may not have been meant too literally, but when discussing an objectively good card when played (vanilla stats with strong long-term up-side) in a game that has many cards that end up weak links even in decks built for them (e.g. Tak Nozwhisker) it is easy to see why few people are more than indifferent about it.

I also find it a bit peculiar that you made this thread before you even had the card to try him for yourself, but that's more of a quiet observation than a complaint.

Quote From AngryShuckie

Quote From RavenSunHS

As a partial OT, following all the replies that argued that sir finley is fine, I actually crafted the card and built this Tempo Reno Paladin in Wild. It doesn't make me change my mind over the necessity of a buff on Sir Finley of the Sands, and the card itself performs quite poorly even in this deck, which is basically built around him (it's Aggro/Tempo because slower Midrange doesn't exist in Wild, not without OTK or so much Value that Paladin can only dream about), but overall the deck is quite good.

 

While lots of upgraded hero powers are useful for aggressive decks, the whole archetype fairly fundamentally goes against using your hero power lots of times so I'm not too surprised Finley wasn't that powerful in it. I am interested in whether Reno was useful most of the time; I suppose he is at least an insurance policy against aggro decks that get a better start.

The only part of your entire argument I have any real issue with is the use of the word 'necessity'. This may not have been meant too literally, but when discussing an objectively good card when played (vanilla stats with strong long-term up-side) in a game that has many cards that end up weak links even in decks built for them (e.g. Tak Nozwhisker) it is easy to see why few people are more than indifferent about it.

I also find it a bit peculiar that you made this thread before you even had the card to try him for yourself, but that's more of a quiet observation than a complaint.

As you said, Reno here acts as an insurance vs Aggro games, when you fail to outtempo them.

My whole point about the "necessity" word was about making Sir Finley of the Sands as useful as his comrades from Uldum. Thos have immediate impact, Finley cannot, so he could use a better statline (1/3 at (1)), in order to have better chances of tutoring him, as well as having one extra turn on-curve to benefit from the HP (if you manage to mulligan him ofc). Basically ALL classes in Wild can have major benefits from a Highlander list (be it meta or offmeta), while the window for that in Paladin is extremely narrow (and will always be because of the design limitation in the class, ie. no efficient board clears). Paladin does not, despite receiving an additional Highlander card.

People are judging Sir Finley of the Sands as if he was Baku the Mooneater on steroids, but he's not, because of Battlecry AND Discover.

Ofc nothing in this game is necessary, not even the game itself.

I also made this thread before having the card, because I already was sure of his outcome. While, on the other hand, I would have crafted him long ago if he was a 1/3 for (1) (in the same way I crafted Elise the Enlightened), not because of him being OP in that way, but because I like little cards that require deckbuilding and with subtle impact in the games. Subtle, but no marginal. At (2) he's still subtle, sometimes game-winning, but ecceedingly marginal for a Highlander card.

I know legendaries could be bad. But this is a Highlander Legendary, not a random The Boogeymonster.

If it turns out to be not good enough even in Wild, it means the card is just not good enough. Cards don't live in the empty space, but in context. And there is no context for which a DISCOVERED HP can carry you for a game, unless it reliably kicks in as soon as possible.

PS: as others have mentioned, all the Uldum Explorers have the same body as their previous iterations. The fact that Finley is different suggests he WAS 1/3 for (1), but he was tuned to (2). Probably because the devs were afraid of giving to the Standard players PTSD after Even/Odd. But obviously that's not the case. It can't be, because of Discover filter (ie can't build proper synergy).

Quote From RavenSunHS

As you said, Reno here acts as an insurance vs Aggro games, when you fail to outtempo them.

My whole point about the "necessity" word was about making Sir Finley of the Sands as useful as his comrades from Uldum. Thos have immediate impact, Finley cannot, so he could use a better statline (1/3 at (1)), in order to have better chances of tutoring him, as well as having one extra turn on-curve to benefit from the HP (if you manage to mulligan him ofc). Basically ALL classes in Wild can have major benefits from a Highlander list (be it meta or offmeta), while the window for that in Paladin is extremely narrow (and will always be because of the design limitation in the class, ie. no efficient board clears). Paladin does not, despite receiving an additional Highlander card.

Ofc nothing in this game is necessary, not even the game itself.

I also made this thread before having the card, because I already was sure of his outcome. While, on the other hand, I would have crafted him long ago if he was a 1/3 for (1), not because of him being OP in that way, but because I like little cards that require deckbuilding and with subtle impact in the games. Subtle, but no marginal. At (2) he's still subtle, but ecceedingly marginal for a Highlander card. That's a pity.

I guess other obvious comparisons are with Inkmaster Solia, Raza the Chained and Krul the Unshackled, all of which were fine but not exceptional until Anduin DK turned up to break Raza, but I think for the context you have set it is better to look outside of highlander decks altogether and focus on other mechanics granted to several/all classes at once.

Take C'Thun decks for example:

In particular for Finley: Paladin's reliance of 2-card removal (because the class de-buffs instead of killing things outright) will always hold back highlander decks which cannot reliably draw both pieces, or have enough of each piece to keep control strategies up for very long. That then pushes you to make something faster to be more reliable (as you did with your aggro/tempo deck) which then reduces Finley's effectiveness.

Soooooooo, in conclusion, if you want to buff Finley in a way that makes him effective you probably want to change him completely to have a fast effect, not just making him cost 1 so a few games you have the hero power on turn 2 because that flies in the face of aggro/tempo game plans anyway unless you get lucky and get the rogue hero power.

---------------------------------

I hope this all makes sense and sees things from a useful new viewpoint. I am sure it wants refining but this is what we have for now.

[Hearthstone Card (Raza the unchained) Not Found] + [Hearthstone Card (shadowreaper) Not Found] anduin is a misleading comparison: the HP from DK is a specific one, which you can deckbuild around. Finley changes your HP to an unpredictable one: even if a card like raza the unchained was released for Paladin, Finley would still be a weak Highlander card, because of lack proper synergy. 

Finley is basically this: moderately random raw power.

That's why an aldor attendant buff would make him substantially better (even if still quite bad, but at least not the worst anymore, arguably).

C'thun was a full-Neutral set, so it's ok that some classes can benefit more than others.

But here we're talking of CLASS Highlander cards. Without a Kazakus available to make up for Class variability.

Inkmaster solia is indeed a good example of a failed Highlander card. But it was correctly replaced with Reno the Relicologist (Mage is currently the class with the most Highlander support, and Reno Mage is a solid meta deck, so it's ok if one of their cards is actually bad).

The suggestions I made were just the minimal buffs that came up to me, as to make them realistic ones, in tune with recent buffs that were actually delivered by the devs. And certainly without the risk of breaking the meta, neither in Standard, nor in Wild. Because the number of options available for Discovery is higher than the available choice.

Surely, an entirely different design could also work. Definitely.

But really, it would be just that easy to make it fair already, especially if we consider it is at (2) probably just because of a potential bias by the community.

I guess I'll hold my hopes for a Rotation buff set!

My point with all the C'thun stuff was that it wasn't a full neutral set: the class C'thun cards made a huge difference. Ultimately those decks were a balance of making the deck weaker with C'thun buffing cards and having a few pay-off cards in C'thun himself, Twin Emperor Vek'lor, and a few class C'thun synergy cards (the ones with 'if your C'thun has 10 or more attack...' battlecries). That is essentially identical to how highlander decks work, with decks being made weaker by having no duplicates, and a few pay-off cards in Zephrys, Alex, and a few class highlander cards (plus extras in Wild of course).

So in my mind any argument about C'thun decks being fine to be weak for some classes applies just the same with highlander decks, and vice versa. You can be OK with both or neither, but saying one is fine while the other isn't sounds inconsistent to me.

--------------------------

For clarity regarding Finley's power-level, I personally never said anything about thinking he would be dangerous like Baku or Raza+Shadowreaper, so I am on the same page as you there. Nor would I complain if Blizz did buff him to a 1 mana 1/3.

My issue has always been that I think Finley is fair (if not outstanding like some of his colleagues) already, and his real problems lie in the class he is in rather than in himself. So since I am OK with weak C'thun classes and believe the same logic applies here, I don't see any need to buff him and I would rather see weak cards that should be the centrepiece of more unique decks buffed first. This is presumably why 2 libram cards have been buffed despite them also being 'fine' to begin with: libram paladin is something was supposed to special to paladin whereas highlander paladin is just 1 class' version of a neutral archetype.

This is largely why I brought up Tak before. No other class can do the sort of extreme shuffling and minion multiplication like rogue can, but at the moment that entire group of cards is being squandered because the centrepiece of the deck is also the worst card in there. The end result is that no one does lots of deck shuffling.

I guess if highlander paladin was particularly unique then I would absolutely argue for buffing Finley, but the no-duplicate constraint always hinders a deck's uniqueness and I'm not sure paladin has enough to take the deck off of the normal spectrum between aggro and slow-midrange. Maybe a secret highlander deck in Wild would be janky enough to interest me...

Well, Zephrys the Great fits the Aggro archetype (mainly with lethals), although Aggro and Highlander don't fit very well together, because Highlander kills Consistency, even in Wild.

But Sir Finley of the Sands is an additional card that goes in the same direction of sheer versatility (instead of just Highlander = Midgame Swing/Value): Paladin might be the only class with a viable (just viable) Highlander Aggro archetype (we could argue about Secret Mage, but a deck with just 2x 1-drops doesn't really classify as Aggro, so far).

I mean, Sir Finley of the Sands was/is exactly the card that can make Highlander Paladin a peculiar deck in its own (despite being still a worse Aggro deck compared with, say, Murloc, Mech, Odd Paladin). The fact it actually is peculiar, but clearly unoptimized for curve purposes is really baffling.

And Aggro needs less extra support, as opposed to some Self-Shuffling archetype (we see it in Warlock just because shuffling goes on par with draw, and I argue no buff to Takk would ever make it into a working archetype, you'd need several Shuffle cards buffed together, and probably new small ones costing little mana, as you can't really afford to waste turns shuffling stuff in the Midgame, when big swing turns happen).

Tbh, I'm actually sure we'll see Finley buffed to (1) 1/3 before the next Rotation kicks in. Because it's just too reasonable, and such a small innocent buff would feed many people (not just for homebrew junkies like me) with new deckbuildings in the same way the buff to Libram Paladin did (I mean, it's not like the buff renewed the deck in any significant way other than a better curve, but look at all the deckbuilding attempts made after the buff), without seriously altering the meta. It would be a terrible mistake otherwise, since the card is already there, especially if it's not a (1) probably just because of past Odd/Even reactions from the playerbase.

Surely I'd take a Secret-based Highlander Paladin in future.

I have just realized we have discussed the possibility of an Aldor Attendant treatment for Sir Finley of the Sands (ie buffing him to 1/3 for (1)) in terms of Highlander Paladin.

That was indeed the main point of my suggestion,but I have realized the same buff would also impact Murloc Paladin (using Finley as a premium early body), which is already a solid meta deck, both in Wild and Standard.

What about that point?

As I see it, the impact would probably be minor in Wild Murloc, but it would be pretty interesting for Standard Murloc. 

Well, the last time I found murloc-heavy decks interesting was during GvG, so I am a bit biased against buffs to murloc decks.

Attempting to overlook that bias, I suppose the OG Sir Finley Mrrgglton never caused murloc decks to sky-rocket, though at the time murloc paladin was based on Anyfin Can Happen BS which didn't want a 1/3 in the pool. Vilefin Inquisitor was much the same.

I guess the difference right now is that murloc paladin is a by-the-numbers play-murlocs-on-curve-and-snowball deck, which already has 3 great murlocs to play on turn 1 (Imprisoned Sungill, Murmy and Murloc Tidecaller) so adding a plain 1-mana 1/3 might risk pushing things over the edge. I personally don't want that, but I accept that is just one person's opinion on a subjective matter.

As for making a singleton murloc deck, I don't think that would be consistently snowball-y enough for it to make a huge difference if he costs 1 or 2, especially in Standard. It is an extra nudge towards viability I suppose, though as is already clear I would not rejoice if it made it.

I can understand your fears, but is Murloc Paladin that threatening in Standard, considering other better aggressive decks like Zoolock or DH himself are allowed there? And considering Finley is a legendary?

(I have no idea actually, I've just seen some streamers)

As for Highlander Murloc, I kinda agree, Consistency of Doubleton tends to be superior for Aggro tribes (they certainly are atm). Indeed, the Aggro Highlander deck I am trying in Wild just uses good standalone cards in order to generate Tempo and create large boards for finishers, and I think this is the way to go for Highlander until Murlocs in Paladin can go wide as fast as Silver Hand Recruits can (which is unlikely I think because it would be redundant).

Quote From RavenSunHS

I can understand your fears, but is Murloc Paladin that threatening in Standard, considering other better aggressive decks like Zoolock or DH himself are allowed there? And considering Finley is a legendary?

...

Yeah I'm not really expecting murloc pally to be any worse than DH, but the especially snowball-y nature of murlocs adds to the feeling of not being able to do anything if they get a good start and yours is merely OK. At least with DH you know if you can't kill an early minion right now it will be no tougher to kill next turn, which is not a luxury you have with murlocs.

Again, it probably wouldn't be all that bad but I just don't like murlocs*.

-----------------------------

* That is not quite true. I liked the Rise of Shadows murlocs in shaman alongside Hagatha the Witch for some serious late-game value generation alongside a board fill. So it is not a grudge against murlocs so much as it is against the traditional curve-and-snowball decks that haven't changed their face since the game released because it mostly works off the back of neutral Classic cards.

That makes me wonder how much more interesting murlocs could be made if Coldlight Seer was HoF'd and the tribe could be taken in different directions each Standard cycle. I'm not suggesting it should be, just musing on it.