Warrior is so spoiled for removal options that this likely won't see play until after set rotation, not even in highlander decks. They could have removed the dragon condition and this still would be a below-average card IMO.
"resummon" because you always have to summon it at least once, before having the effect at hand.
And indeed, if that's the case, DR Rogue just got a nice new toy, not just Myracle.
But probably still insufficient to make it safe from Aggro. The archetype stays in check.
If it just summoned a new copy, why wouldn't they use the word "summons" instead? Dreadsteed doesn't use "resummon", it just "summons a dreadsteed". Likewise, resurrect effect use "summon a minion that died this game" even though these minions have all already been summoned at least once before.
If you ask me the different wording implies a different mechanic at play here.
Waxadred's Candle reads: Casts when drawn. Summon Waxadred.
To me it sounds like it will summon a Waxadred regardless of what has happened before or whether Waxadred is still alive or not.
That just makes it all the more mystifying why they worded the card itself that way. But this certainly clarifies how the card interacts with copy effects and deathrattle triggers.
I doubt going all-in on copying Waxadred or triggering its deathrattle is the most effective way to use the card but it sure looks like fun.
"resummon" because you always have to summon it at least once, before having the effect at hand.
And indeed, if that's the case, DR Rogue just got a nice new toy, not just Myracle.
But probably still insufficient to make it safe from Aggro. The archetype stays in check.
If it just summoned a new copy, why wouldn't they use the word "summons" instead? Dreadsteed doesn't use "resummon", it just "summons a dreadsteed". Likewise, resurrect effects use "summon a minion that died this game" even though these minions have all already been summoned at least once before.
If you ask me the different wording implies a different mechanic at play here.
Edit: to be clear, I don't think they changed the wording just so the candles would fizzle if (somehow) drawn before Waxadred dies (which wouldn't be the case if it just said "summon a Waxadred"). That seems like such an unlikely, fringe scenario to begin with that it wouldn't be a balance issue. If anything, that sort of wackiness seems to be encouraged in hearthstone. Like I said, I think the wording implies a different mechanic.
Good card but i wonder how it will interact with Necrium Vial.
Necrium Vial will shuffle two Candles in your deck and, if you draw them while Waxadred is still alive, they won't do anything.
Just like when you shuffle more than three Candles with The Darkness and your opponent draws them when it's already awakened.
That depends on how exactly the card works. If it is like Lucentbark and leaves behind a dormant version of itself, then yes, you would be correct. Considering it doesn't mention the phrase "go dormant", I'd assume you can actually multiply Waxadred with Necrium Vial
If the card summons a brand new copy when the candle is drawn, rather than Waxadred going dormant on death and reviving, then the card could be a lot of fun with copy effects like faceless manipulator as well. However, to me the word "resummon" suggests that Waxadred goes dormant, which would make these sorts of shenanigans a bit less enticing.
1 mana 1/3 is a busted statline and this card has a must-remove effect. The chance of this sticking to the board for one turn is much higher than the older sniper guy surviving into turn three, not to mention the fact that this naturally curves into a heropower on turn two rather than floating mana on turn three. It's easier to fit this in alongside a hero power as well.
This card is going to be in pretty much every viable hunter deck.
If you break it down you're paying 2 mana for +2 spell damage and discover a dragon. That's not a bad deal on paper, it's just a bit of an unfortunate combination of benefits that don't really add up. If you compare it to Azure Drake, the card this is clearly a nod to, the Drake is a better proactive threat because it'll probably kill whatever runs into it. Azure Explorer, on the other hand, might represent a greater threat if left unchecked, but is a lot easier for any 3-drop to value trade into. Meanwhile, at 4 mana the card is just too expensive to feasibly combine with cheaper AoE.
As for Arena, I could see the card work if you can snatch up shooting star and arcane explosions. Otherwise, again, the bad stats completely negate the +2 spell damage and it becomes a huge tempo loss.
I love cards like this that let me play all sorts of legendaries for the cost of a rare card. 1 mana discover-a-card spells historically haven't been very good, but I think the upside of discovering legendaries from other classes in burgle rogue probably makes it legit playable.
It's not really possible to know whether this will see play until we see the full set of invoke cards as well as all the different Galakrond hero power/invoke effects. Bear in mind that the invoke effect only has to generate 2 mana worth of stuff to make this card cost effective, which is incidentally how much hero powers cost, and upgraded hero powers actually tend to be worth about 2 mana.
Four mana for a 2/2 rush, 2 1/1 Imps and a tick on my Galakrond counter doesn't sound like a horrible deal, for example.
Do the mana crystals come full or empty? I would expect it to be empty, which means yes you just dropped an 8/8 but your opponent is the first one to get access to a full ten mana. On the other hand if the crystals come in full this is broken.
if it works like Mojomaster Zihi then you will gain full mana crystals, but any mana you have already spent this turn will stay empty. So playing this guy at 4 mana will leave you with 6 mana open.
This is just an educated guess, so don't quote me on this.
You never know with hearthstone until you get to test it because it's not the most consistent game in the world. Just judging by balance though, I would be shocked if this card left you with 6 mana to spend after coming down as a 4 mana 8/8. That would completely negate the 'cost' of giving the opponent the first turn with ten mana to spare: assuming you have any 6 mana plays you're effectively putting 14 mana worth of stats on the board, not to mention the fact that your opponent probably didn't build their deck or mulligan for spending 10 mana on turn 4.
I think it's pretty safe to assume you're left with empty mana crystals if you play this on turn four, or if not, that it'll work that way after the inevitable nerf.
I don’t mean to be rude, but is anyone else disappointed with the legendary dragon card art? They aren’t necessarily bad, just not very epic
I'm guessing the artists were somewhat limited because they were given instructions not to outshine Galakrond, but you're not wrong, most of the other legendary dragons don't look very grand or epic. Even Fate Weaver, a nameless dragon dude, has more majesty than the new Ysera, Nozdormu, Deathwing and Malygos. I don't mind Waxadred looking a bit silly, but they really done the old guard dirty in the art department here.
Regardless of power level, I strongly dislike the design of these new Galakrond cards. It seems to combine all the worst design aspects of C'thun, (being forced to play meh cards to power up your big win condition), Spellstones (balance issues with weak uncharged versions and OP supercharged versions) and hero cards. Worst of all, the card itself tells you next to nothing about what it does, which has always been a peeve of mine, but Galakrond takes it to new heights. At the very least they ought to have printed the invoke effects onto the cards, because it's ridiculous that you have to watch the expansion trailer to learn what invoking Glakrond actually does.
I thought Blizzard was moving away from this type of single-card-centric playstyle after their KotFT experiment, but I guess we're doubling down now.
In my experience reciprocal roping doesn't stop the other guy from doing it; at that point it's become a game of chicken and the BM-er doesn't want to be the first one to nope out.
Whether or not it has a deterrent effect after-the fact isn't something you can determine with the limited information you have as a player. Who knows, maybe blizzard has data on on it. Intuitively, I'd assume that players who get roped right back are less likely to do the same in the next game, but who knows? We're basically trying to find a logic in behaviour that's irrational to begin with, so it'd be stupid to suggest that anything without hard data backing it is more than speculation.
That said, I think it's perfectly justified to respond in kind, and I've done so myself several times.
Is it correct I can currently (on mobile) only switch to one or the other, but not switch back to see both again (except by changing the url manually?)
You can get back to the homepage by tapping on the Out of Cards logo at the top of the page. There you should have access to content from all games.
Unless I misunderstood your question.
I think the question is whether you can reset or turn off the filter to show all games by default, and/or whether such a functionality will be added later.
Maybe we should be able to have a ban option before we queue? Where you can ban one class for instance. Just like those tournaments...but maybe that would be too OP for some decks which only have one bad matchup.
That sounds like a terrible idea. Imagine picking rock, banning scissors and then queuing into only paper players: would that be very exciting? Bad matchups are a part of the game. Without them you can't have a healthy meta.
If you want to target res priest specifically, I'd say you're better off wrecking their resurrection pool with Plague of Murlocs and Hex. Mojomaster Zihi is a very niche tech card that works best against OTK combo decks by giving you an extra few turns to close out the game. On paper, sure, it's supposed to be good if your opponent has expensive stuff and you're playing aggro, but I've found it rather underwhelming in that capacity: once you've reached the point where restricting your opponent's mana by putting them one ahead of you sounds enticing you're probably not in the best place to begin with as an aggro deck. Not to mention the fact that you don't want to glut an aggro deck with weird, situational lategame cards. I certainly wouldn't craft a Zihi just for this Doom in the Tomb meta.
Flux said in the Eternal TCG thread that the best way to convince the mods that a dedicated section is needed for another game is to start a thread on that game see if it gains traction. If there isn't enough interest, a sticky'd thread is probably better than a whole separate section.
Warrior is so spoiled for removal options that this likely won't see play until after set rotation, not even in highlander decks. They could have removed the dragon condition and this still would be a below-average card IMO.
That just makes it all the more mystifying why they worded the card itself that way. But this certainly clarifies how the card interacts with copy effects and deathrattle triggers.
I doubt going all-in on copying Waxadred or triggering its deathrattle is the most effective way to use the card but it sure looks like fun.
If it just summoned a new copy, why wouldn't they use the word "summons" instead? Dreadsteed doesn't use "resummon", it just "summons a dreadsteed". Likewise, resurrect effects use "summon a minion that died this game" even though these minions have all already been summoned at least once before.
If you ask me the different wording implies a different mechanic at play here.
Edit: to be clear, I don't think they changed the wording just so the candles would fizzle if (somehow) drawn before Waxadred dies (which wouldn't be the case if it just said "summon a Waxadred"). That seems like such an unlikely, fringe scenario to begin with that it wouldn't be a balance issue. If anything, that sort of wackiness seems to be encouraged in hearthstone. Like I said, I think the wording implies a different mechanic.
If the card summons a brand new copy when the candle is drawn, rather than Waxadred going dormant on death and reviving, then the card could be a lot of fun with copy effects like faceless manipulator as well. However, to me the word "resummon" suggests that Waxadred goes dormant, which would make these sorts of shenanigans a bit less enticing.
1 mana 1/3 is a busted statline and this card has a must-remove effect. The chance of this sticking to the board for one turn is much higher than the older sniper guy surviving into turn three, not to mention the fact that this naturally curves into a heropower on turn two rather than floating mana on turn three. It's easier to fit this in alongside a hero power as well.
This card is going to be in pretty much every viable hunter deck.
If you break it down you're paying 2 mana for +2 spell damage and discover a dragon. That's not a bad deal on paper, it's just a bit of an unfortunate combination of benefits that don't really add up. If you compare it to Azure Drake, the card this is clearly a nod to, the Drake is a better proactive threat because it'll probably kill whatever runs into it. Azure Explorer, on the other hand, might represent a greater threat if left unchecked, but is a lot easier for any 3-drop to value trade into. Meanwhile, at 4 mana the card is just too expensive to feasibly combine with cheaper AoE.
As for Arena, I could see the card work if you can snatch up shooting star and arcane explosions. Otherwise, again, the bad stats completely negate the +2 spell damage and it becomes a huge tempo loss.
I love cards like this that let me play all sorts of legendaries for the cost of a rare card. 1 mana discover-a-card spells historically haven't been very good, but I think the upside of discovering legendaries from other classes in burgle rogue probably makes it legit playable.
Waxadred is cheap enough to seriously consider in an aggressive tempo rogue with Myra's Unstable Element.
Okay, on second thought he's probably still too slow even if he's effectively unkillable, but it's a cute rank 15 play at least.
It's not really possible to know whether this will see play until we see the full set of invoke cards as well as all the different Galakrond hero power/invoke effects. Bear in mind that the invoke effect only has to generate 2 mana worth of stuff to make this card cost effective, which is incidentally how much hero powers cost, and upgraded hero powers actually tend to be worth about 2 mana.
Four mana for a 2/2 rush, 2 1/1 Imps and a tick on my Galakrond counter doesn't sound like a horrible deal, for example.
You never know with hearthstone until you get to test it because it's not the most consistent game in the world. Just judging by balance though, I would be shocked if this card left you with 6 mana to spend after coming down as a 4 mana 8/8. That would completely negate the 'cost' of giving the opponent the first turn with ten mana to spare: assuming you have any 6 mana plays you're effectively putting 14 mana worth of stats on the board, not to mention the fact that your opponent probably didn't build their deck or mulligan for spending 10 mana on turn 4.
I think it's pretty safe to assume you're left with empty mana crystals if you play this on turn four, or if not, that it'll work that way after the inevitable nerf.
I'm guessing the artists were somewhat limited because they were given instructions not to outshine Galakrond, but you're not wrong, most of the other legendary dragons don't look very grand or epic. Even Fate Weaver, a nameless dragon dude, has more majesty than the new Ysera, Nozdormu, Deathwing and Malygos. I don't mind Waxadred looking a bit silly, but they really done the old guard dirty in the art department here.
Regardless of power level, I strongly dislike the design of these new Galakrond cards. It seems to combine all the worst design aspects of C'thun, (being forced to play meh cards to power up your big win condition), Spellstones (balance issues with weak uncharged versions and OP supercharged versions) and hero cards. Worst of all, the card itself tells you next to nothing about what it does, which has always been a peeve of mine, but Galakrond takes it to new heights. At the very least they ought to have printed the invoke effects onto the cards, because it's ridiculous that you have to watch the expansion trailer to learn what invoking Glakrond actually does.
I thought Blizzard was moving away from this type of single-card-centric playstyle after their KotFT experiment, but I guess we're doubling down now.
In my experience reciprocal roping doesn't stop the other guy from doing it; at that point it's become a game of chicken and the BM-er doesn't want to be the first one to nope out.
Whether or not it has a deterrent effect after-the fact isn't something you can determine with the limited information you have as a player. Who knows, maybe blizzard has data on on it. Intuitively, I'd assume that players who get roped right back are less likely to do the same in the next game, but who knows? We're basically trying to find a logic in behaviour that's irrational to begin with, so it'd be stupid to suggest that anything without hard data backing it is more than speculation.
That said, I think it's perfectly justified to respond in kind, and I've done so myself several times.
I assumed the split/filter would also apply to the forums. Is something like that in the works?
I think the question is whether you can reset or turn off the filter to show all games by default, and/or whether such a functionality will be added later.
That sounds like a terrible idea. Imagine picking rock, banning scissors and then queuing into only paper players: would that be very exciting? Bad matchups are a part of the game. Without them you can't have a healthy meta.
Just checked; mine are still there.
If you want to target res priest specifically, I'd say you're better off wrecking their resurrection pool with Plague of Murlocs and Hex. Mojomaster Zihi is a very niche tech card that works best against OTK combo decks by giving you an extra few turns to close out the game. On paper, sure, it's supposed to be good if your opponent has expensive stuff and you're playing aggro, but I've found it rather underwhelming in that capacity: once you've reached the point where restricting your opponent's mana by putting them one ahead of you sounds enticing you're probably not in the best place to begin with as an aggro deck. Not to mention the fact that you don't want to glut an aggro deck with weird, situational lategame cards. I certainly wouldn't craft a Zihi just for this Doom in the Tomb meta.
Yep, that's the plan. Flash discusses it here at length: https://outof.cards/forums/out-of-cards/site-updates/1795-a-note-on-supporting-multiple-games-on-out-of-cards
I assume this thread can just get merged with that one.
Flux said in the Eternal TCG thread that the best way to convince the mods that a dedicated section is needed for another game is to start a thread on that game see if it gains traction. If there isn't enough interest, a sticky'd thread is probably better than a whole separate section.