Holy Wrath is only good against Shaman. It's honestly not worth playing to try and counter the Shamans, because you'll just get beaten by everything else. I suggest either join the dark side (Shaman) until nerfs hit, or go play some random deck in Wild to pass the time.
The worst about this card is to face it in Arena. You are so ahead then your opponent play it, all the game is screw you are too far for recovering. Lost my 3 games because of that card :(
Too slow, as others have said. You are better off putting a different card in your deck, that will actually help you achieve your win condition, rather than to have a cute "dead" card that will do almost nothing for you.
Well i do hope for the time to come when there is a limit to epic card. Getting an epic card three times or maybe even four times is not the best feeling, especially if it is bad.
way too slow. Useless before the quest and in most cases a slightly annoying minion afterwards. You can't guarantee that yoour oppponent doesn't have the means to kill it twice in a turn, and even if they didn't, what do you even gain? Just play the regular list and kill your opponent instead of trying to outvalue them.
The legendary cards distribution is fine what is not fine is the epic card distribution.. Epics are too rare for how many you need.. There are too many bad epics for them to be as rare as they are now..
Or you know make common cards yield more dust just a small increase from 5 to 10 will go a long way...
I cannot agree to this more. Having the Legendary cards is great. But when most decks that are competitive need 2 copies of epics, often times more than 1 epic in the deck, this is problematic. Especially when you only get a small fraction of dust from cards.
Guys i dont wanna break your whole thing, but while corrupt the waters stays like it is, shaman is gonna stay overpowered. Brann on steroids every turn is just too much value and tempo and pressure for any deck to deal with. Most likely change (and what i think they will do) is change the heart of vir nal effect from "all battlecries this turn trigger twice" to -> "your next battlecry this turn triggers twice".
Only possible way that card isnt toxic in the meta for another whole year and a half
fair enough. I guess it's a matter of what matchup it's supposed to be good against. 4 4/4s is weaker against control, but stronger against midrange, 8/8s are the other way round.
About the four 4/4's vs two 8/8's I think that getting four 4/4's would be easier to deal with. It is the same amount of stats, and you do get to spread it out more, but the minions are also taking damage faster. With an 8/8, you can kill a 6/6 in one hit and you still have an 8/2, but with two 4/4's, you would have to kill both of them to get rid of a 6/6 and you are left with nothing. Plus, you can kill multiple 4/4's with a single AOE, but with a pair of 8/8's you need multiple single target removal spells. Furthermore, it takes up more space on the board, which does matter when the deck wants to swarm a lot.
to be fair, Galakrond Warlock is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be. The Invokers, while not that strong, are good enough to be played and Veiled Worshipper carries the deck to the point where even a Galakrond Handlock has been created (that performs slightly better than the regular version) just because of how storng that card is.
Galakrond itself isn't even weak ,because by the time you play him you usually want to finish off the opponent, whiich is what the Claw is for. The Demons are just an added bonus and you usually get at least one minion that's a 5/5 or above, which is good enough for the final pressure. He's not a real powerplay as he is just your final tool to close out the game (especially with the follow-up Kronx).
I'd argue that Warlock is the second best class to use Galakrond right now, even if only for the amazing synergy with Grim Rally and Sea Giant.
2) probably also fair, but I'd rather Frost was just a straight-up 2-mana card so it's not just a free removal against pretty much any 1-drop in the game.
3) not sure if that wouldn't make it even more powerful, given that it would end up with the same amount of stats except more flexible distributio
4) that wouldn't change much because in most cases that's when you play it anyways (right after Elementalist...unless they actually add Overload there, which would somewhat balance it out). I'd rather the downsize the wolves to 4/5s (aka +2/+2) since most decks in the meta don't have accesss to 6 damage removal.
5) that or applying to friendlies only (and maybe going down to 6-mana so it can still be played for 0 in a best case scenario + the benefit of it not being as broken of a Mutate target)
6) I'd rather they jsut nerf the health down to 2 or 3. Thee problem with Corruptor is the amount of stats in puts in play that need to be dealt with (after they most likely cleared your board). By reducing the Health they'd still be a decent comeback mechanic for token heavy decks, but much less effective as an actual aggressive play.
oh and for you Bonuns....don't. So far Galakrond Priest seems weak, but it could become amazing in any meta where outressourcing your opponent is important, and I don't want another Rexxar/Dr. Boom situation. Delivery Drone has proven that having the choice out of 3 minions will usually give you an outcome to swing the current situation in your favour and Priest has a fairly szeable collection if decently sized minions. Wouldn't want them to throw those out every turn while you struggle to even stay on the board.
Do you think Blizzard would actually do something like that? For example to keep winrates of certain decks in control.
Occam's Razor.
Is it bad luck? Or is there a secret algorithm designed to pit only you against your worst match up.
Keep in mind, that would mean that there's an algorithm designed to give someone else all of their best match ups.
What would be the purpose of such a system? Why is it only giving you bad matches, but other people good ones? Why would resources be dedicated to design and implement that system?
4) Even with all that I think you still nerf Dragon's Pack to 6 mana.
5) Take this opportunity to nerf Mogu Fleshshaper to 10 mana.
6) Nerf Faceless Corruptor to a 3/2, making it a slightly worse neutral version of Restless Mummy, an already excellent card.
BONUS BUFF:
1) Change Priest Galakrond's hero power to: Discover a Priest Minion. It would still likely suck and be untenable in the meta, but at least I wouldn't be playing Lightwell on turn 15 with no follow-up.
Good question! It's definitely a midrange deck, and it can win without Embiggen. However, Embiggen makes every card you play after it better than a card your opponent can play for the same cost, so I would definitely say it helps with winning.
hi I originally played murloc shaman so it feels good that other people like it. I do feel this deck very diluted with non-murlocs and I feel that the normal deck already ends up with a full hand a lot so you wont be getting as much of a boost from the other cards. I've posted a deck called Murlocaliber and to show my take on a less diluted, less costly murloc shaman.
However this is great work I just think there isn't always room for all the value
And yet, on my climb from the 12 I was sat at having not really played in two months, to my current rank 4 (haven't played all that much to be honest, managed a respectable 85% winrate getting there), I never had issues with Shaman. Met plenty of them, sure, but beat most of them and never felt overwhelmed at any point. Teched a pair of Brawls into my midrange warrior and that was that - they contest board well, but as soon as they lose board their only out is two boards of 8/8s (i.e. Galakrond and then Shudderwock). If you have answers for those boardstates, whether via Brawl or duplicated Scions of Ruin, you're pretty much set. They also pack basically no healing, so aggressive strategies shut them down pretty hard.
The winrate is high right now because it's the start of an expansion. I made an entire essay-post primarily devoted to telling people not to make ridiculously greedy decks, precisely because that's exactly what people do at the start of an expansion.
Anyway. That's not even the point. The point I'm trying to make is that the argument as to whether Shaman is overpowered right now is entirely redundant because it's literally impossible to tell at this point whether the meta can resolve it on its own or not. We've all seen decks pop up out of nowhere and break into the meta hard. A week into the expansion we've barely even found our feet. Anyone can have theories, but we don't have enough data to actually form a strong position because that data does not exist. Deckbuilding is a fundamentally iterative process, and when those iterations have yet to be performed - and the meta has yet to react to them - we cannot say with any sort of certainty what's overpowered and what's just strong.
Though, of course, I fully expect to get as downvoted on this post as on my original one. Because people are predictable, and 'burn the witch' is so common a reaction as to actually be boring at this point.
My issue with the 'nerf anti-fun' position is both a) your point on enjoyment being subjective, and a broader b) that people are really bad at knowing what's actually fun.
I realise that statement sounds phenomenally arrogant at first glance, but consider - how many 'be careful what you wish for' stories are there in popular culture and mythology? People think they want the big bad deck they're scared of to go away, and yet as soon as it does, something else rises to take its place. To put it in Wild terms - nerf the Mill Rogues keeping control honest and suddenly greed becomes king.
Yes, genuine anti-fun should be removed - but frankly, it should never actually get into the game in the first place with good pre-release testing. And it takes way more than a week to figure out whether something's genuinely anti-fun or just something people need to work out how to deal with.
I've seen the 'token druid is anti-fun' argument in a dozen different expansions now... and I don't think token druid was in tiers 1 or 2 at the end of any of them. The meta resolves these things most of the time.
Was there a Cthun deck that lasted past the first couple weeks of Old Gods? I seem to remember they all got pushed out of the meta pretty quickly. Galakrond is the first time since then that this concept has been pushed, only this time they seem to have succeeded.
Suspicious Matchmaking
Holy Wrath is only good against Shaman. It's honestly not worth playing to try and counter the Shamans, because you'll just get beaten by everything else. I suggest either join the dark side (Shaman) until nerfs hit, or go play some random deck in Wild to pass the time.
New Neutral Minion - Faceless Corruptor
The worst about this card is to face it in Arena. You are so ahead then your opponent play it, all the game is screw you are too far for recovering. Lost my 3 games because of that card :(
Standard Meta Report #15 - Fixing (Yet Another) Shaman Meta
I agree wholeheartedly.
Reccuring villian in quest hunter
Too slow, as others have said. You are better off putting a different card in your deck, that will actually help you achieve your win condition, rather than to have a cute "dead" card that will do almost nothing for you.
Embiggen Dragon Druid [Updated]
Ok then :) Good luck!
Hearthstone Balance Changes Confirmed For Next Week
Because the best performing builds that ruin ladder don't run the quest. Does that answer your question?
Should the pity timer be lower?
Well i do hope for the time to come when there is a limit to epic card. Getting an epic card three times or maybe even four times is not the best feeling, especially if it is bad.
Reccuring villian in quest hunter
way too slow. Useless before the quest and in most cases a slightly annoying minion afterwards. You can't guarantee that yoour oppponent doesn't have the means to kill it twice in a turn, and even if they didn't, what do you even gain? Just play the regular list and kill your opponent instead of trying to outvalue them.
Should the pity timer be lower?
I cannot agree to this more. Having the Legendary cards is great. But when most decks that are competitive need 2 copies of epics, often times more than 1 epic in the deck, this is problematic. Especially when you only get a small fraction of dust from cards.
Hearthstone Balance Changes Confirmed For Next Week
Why nobody mentions Corrupt the Waters? That card is bonkers and half the reason shaman is so crazy busted right now...
Should the pity timer be lower?
No.
Standard Meta Report #15 - Fixing (Yet Another) Shaman Meta
Guys i dont wanna break your whole thing, but while corrupt the waters stays like it is, shaman is gonna stay overpowered. Brann on steroids every turn is just too much value and tempo and pressure for any deck to deal with. Most likely change (and what i think they will do) is change the heart of vir nal effect from "all battlecries this turn trigger twice" to -> "your next battlecry this turn triggers twice".
Only possible way that card isnt toxic in the meta for another whole year and a half
Standard Meta Report #15 - Fixing (Yet Another) Shaman Meta
fair enough. I guess it's a matter of what matchup it's supposed to be good against. 4 4/4s is weaker against control, but stronger against midrange, 8/8s are the other way round.
Reccuring villian in quest hunter
Bad. Far too slow.
Standard Meta Report #15 - Fixing (Yet Another) Shaman Meta
About the four 4/4's vs two 8/8's I think that getting four 4/4's would be easier to deal with. It is the same amount of stats, and you do get to spread it out more, but the minions are also taking damage faster. With an 8/8, you can kill a 6/6 in one hit and you still have an 8/2, but with two 4/4's, you would have to kill both of them to get rid of a 6/6 and you are left with nothing. Plus, you can kill multiple 4/4's with a single AOE, but with a pair of 8/8's you need multiple single target removal spells. Furthermore, it takes up more space on the board, which does matter when the deck wants to swarm a lot.
Reccuring villian in quest hunter
Good or bad and why?
Standard Meta Report #15 - Fixing (Yet Another) Shaman Meta
to be fair, Galakrond Warlock is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be. The Invokers, while not that strong, are good enough to be played and Veiled Worshipper carries the deck to the point where even a Galakrond Handlock has been created (that performs slightly better than the regular version) just because of how storng that card is.
Galakrond itself isn't even weak ,because by the time you play him you usually want to finish off the opponent, whiich is what the Claw is for. The Demons are just an added bonus and you usually get at least one minion that's a 5/5 or above, which is good enough for the final pressure. He's not a real powerplay as he is just your final tool to close out the game (especially with the follow-up Kronx).
I'd argue that Warlock is the second best class to use Galakrond right now, even if only for the amazing synergy with Grim Rally and Sea Giant.
Standard Meta Report #15 - Fixing (Yet Another) Shaman Meta
1) fair
2) probably also fair, but I'd rather Frost was just a straight-up 2-mana card so it's not just a free removal against pretty much any 1-drop in the game.
3) not sure if that wouldn't make it even more powerful, given that it would end up with the same amount of stats except more flexible distributio
4) that wouldn't change much because in most cases that's when you play it anyways (right after Elementalist...unless they actually add Overload there, which would somewhat balance it out). I'd rather the downsize the wolves to 4/5s (aka +2/+2) since most decks in the meta don't have accesss to 6 damage removal.
5) that or applying to friendlies only (and maybe going down to 6-mana so it can still be played for 0 in a best case scenario + the benefit of it not being as broken of a Mutate target)
6) I'd rather they jsut nerf the health down to 2 or 3. Thee problem with Corruptor is the amount of stats in puts in play that need to be dealt with (after they most likely cleared your board). By reducing the Health they'd still be a decent comeback mechanic for token heavy decks, but much less effective as an actual aggressive play.
oh and for you Bonuns....don't. So far Galakrond Priest seems weak, but it could become amazing in any meta where outressourcing your opponent is important, and I don't want another Rexxar/Dr. Boom situation. Delivery Drone has proven that having the choice out of 3 minions will usually give you an outcome to swing the current situation in your favour and Priest has a fairly szeable collection if decently sized minions. Wouldn't want them to throw those out every turn while you struggle to even stay on the board.
Suspicious Matchmaking
Occam's Razor.
Is it bad luck? Or is there a secret algorithm designed to pit only you against your worst match up.
Keep in mind, that would mean that there's an algorithm designed to give someone else all of their best match ups.
What would be the purpose of such a system?
Why is it only giving you bad matches, but other people good ones?
Why would resources be dedicated to design and implement that system?
Standard Meta Report #15 - Fixing (Yet Another) Shaman Meta
Great suggestions in the comments. My favorites:
1) Hero power is 1/1 Rush instead of 2/1 Rush.
2) Add Overload (1) to BOTH Invocation of Frost and Corrupt Elementalist.
3) Change Battlecry to 1x 4/4 Rush, 2x 4/4 Rush, 4x 4/4 Rush
4) Even with all that I think you still nerf Dragon's Pack to 6 mana.
5) Take this opportunity to nerf Mogu Fleshshaper to 10 mana.
6) Nerf Faceless Corruptor to a 3/2, making it a slightly worse neutral version of Restless Mummy, an already excellent card.
BONUS BUFF:
1) Change Priest Galakrond's hero power to: Discover a Priest Minion. It would still likely suck and be untenable in the meta, but at least I wouldn't be playing Lightwell on turn 15 with no follow-up.
Embiggen Dragon Druid [Updated]
Good question! It's definitely a midrange deck, and it can win without Embiggen. However, Embiggen makes every card you play after it better than a card your opponent can play for the same cost, so I would definitely say it helps with winning.
Shaman² | (Murlocalypse)
hi I originally played murloc shaman so it feels good that other people like it. I do feel this deck very diluted with non-murlocs and I feel that the normal deck already ends up with a full hand a lot so you wont be getting as much of a boost from the other cards. I've posted a deck called Murlocaliber and to show my take on a less diluted, less costly murloc shaman.
However this is great work I just think there isn't always room for all the value
Hearthstone Balance Changes Confirmed For Next Week
And yet, on my climb from the 12 I was sat at having not really played in two months, to my current rank 4 (haven't played all that much to be honest, managed a respectable 85% winrate getting there), I never had issues with Shaman. Met plenty of them, sure, but beat most of them and never felt overwhelmed at any point. Teched a pair of Brawls into my midrange warrior and that was that - they contest board well, but as soon as they lose board their only out is two boards of 8/8s (i.e. Galakrond and then Shudderwock). If you have answers for those boardstates, whether via Brawl or duplicated Scions of Ruin, you're pretty much set. They also pack basically no healing, so aggressive strategies shut them down pretty hard.
The winrate is high right now because it's the start of an expansion. I made an entire essay-post primarily devoted to telling people not to make ridiculously greedy decks, precisely because that's exactly what people do at the start of an expansion.
Anyway. That's not even the point. The point I'm trying to make is that the argument as to whether Shaman is overpowered right now is entirely redundant because it's literally impossible to tell at this point whether the meta can resolve it on its own or not. We've all seen decks pop up out of nowhere and break into the meta hard. A week into the expansion we've barely even found our feet. Anyone can have theories, but we don't have enough data to actually form a strong position because that data does not exist. Deckbuilding is a fundamentally iterative process, and when those iterations have yet to be performed - and the meta has yet to react to them - we cannot say with any sort of certainty what's overpowered and what's just strong.
Though, of course, I fully expect to get as downvoted on this post as on my original one. Because people are predictable, and 'burn the witch' is so common a reaction as to actually be boring at this point.
Hearthstone Balance Changes Confirmed For Next Week
My issue with the 'nerf anti-fun' position is both a) your point on enjoyment being subjective, and a broader b) that people are really bad at knowing what's actually fun.
I realise that statement sounds phenomenally arrogant at first glance, but consider - how many 'be careful what you wish for' stories are there in popular culture and mythology? People think they want the big bad deck they're scared of to go away, and yet as soon as it does, something else rises to take its place. To put it in Wild terms - nerf the Mill Rogues keeping control honest and suddenly greed becomes king.
Yes, genuine anti-fun should be removed - but frankly, it should never actually get into the game in the first place with good pre-release testing. And it takes way more than a week to figure out whether something's genuinely anti-fun or just something people need to work out how to deal with.
I've seen the 'token druid is anti-fun' argument in a dozen different expansions now... and I don't think token druid was in tiers 1 or 2 at the end of any of them. The meta resolves these things most of the time.
Hearthstone Balance Changes Confirmed For Next Week
Was there a Cthun deck that lasted past the first couple weeks of Old Gods? I seem to remember they all got pushed out of the meta pretty quickly. Galakrond is the first time since then that this concept has been pushed, only this time they seem to have succeeded.