Chronobreaker: Ugh. I'll be the first to admit that I've disagreed with the majority view on most of the reveals so far - in part because of my reactionary nature, and in part because in my opinion people don't seem to understand how to properly analyse cards. This one, though, I am 100% confident on, and the majority view seems wholly incorrect as far as I can see it.
This card is not Duskbreaker. It's not trying to be Duskbreaker, and it doesn't need to be Duskbreaker. It's not a reactionary anti-aggro tool, and obviously if you look at the card with that blinkered view it's going to look weaker. What it is, however, is the midrange statline that a dragon-centric Priest build is going to need. The deathrattle is a board complication, asking a question of your opponent before they can go on to answer the rest of the boardstate. It doesn't need to be a reactionary board clear because Priest already has enough of those - what Priest needs right now is midgame staying power to get it to late game (and the tools and value to win in the late game, obviously).
It's not the strongest card in the expansion, but this is a good card and it will see play if draconic Control Priest builds make any headway in the meta.
Kaahrj: Honestly not really sure what to make of this one, I'll admit, but my guess is it's going to be decent. To be clear, it's not anything incredible - it's just a value card, a bag of stats in most cases. However, it's sticky, has the potential for a lot of value, and most importantly, it's correctly priced to potentially see play. I think people are underrating it slightly in some cases because of its 3-cost status, and in a few cases overrating it because of its highroll potential. Looking past both of these, though, the central function of the card so far as I can see is to be a multiplier onto removal - develop something with a lot of stats in the same turn as removing something dangerous. Being cheap means you can slot it in alongside most removal tools, and it being a deathrattle means it slots in alongside AoE.
I wouldn't normally comment to correct someone's spelling, but I feel I should interject to note the name is Violet Hold. Entirely because Violate hold is a different and significantly less PG place.
Not a lot of analysis going on over here aside from 'hunter wat'.
For what it's worth: skeptical that it'll see play. Eaglehorn Bow already does the same thing but better, in any deck that isn't specifically dragon-centric. And as we've surely discussed to death by now, competently-built dragon decks have not historically contained all that many dragons, relatively speaking.
I think it's also worth noting, just as a point of interest more than anything, that this card is fundamentally anti-synergistic with a lot of dragon cards' effects. It's very common for them to be activated by holding another dragon in hand; this card is activated by having a dragon on the board. If you run this card in a dragon deck, it probably won't be particularly rare for you to have to choose between keeping this weapon in play and keeping a dragon in hand to activate your topdeck.
No major analysis from me that hasn't already been addressed in the comments below, but will make one point that several people seem to have missed - whether your card becomes cheaper or more expensive, there's still a downside. You're still drawing your opponent a card. It might be more expensive than it normally would be, but it's still an extra resource you gave them. The card being more expensive is going to be irrelevant unless it's specifically a combo piece or you go to fatigue (the latter of which is unlikely if you're running this card).
To be fair, Mecha'thun Lock has been running Doomsayer-Treachery for some time now in high legend lists (in Wild, obviously) because you don't want to run removal that can't be cleansed by Hemet. Obviously Doomsayer is better than this card for that job, just noting that even with all the Wild removal, Treachery still sees play :P
Both posts in this thread are pretty bang on my reasoning too. It's not a bad card, it's a very strong one subjectively and it will see play in every dragon deck. But it's not the world being razed.
It'll discount a limited number of cards in your deck, most likely ten or less in any competitive list. Many of those will be high-drops whose discounted cost will not be all that disproportionately powerful. Overall, looking at a large representative sample of games, I'd expect (and being clear - this isn't scientific at all) to see this card have a significant impact in one in ten of them at most.
Further prediction - this card will be nerfed. It will not be nerfed because it's overly powerful, although T5 will likely present it as being so. It will instead be nerfed because every scrub that eats a one-game-in-a-thousand highroll curve against this card will whine about it endlessly until it's nerfed just to shut them up.
Whilst I disagree with a few of the analyses here, no point me re-posting an opinion I already posted on the individual card pages, so I shall limit myself to only one objection:
Babbling Book x Glyph? That'd produce offspring that generate two cards, or one card with a (1) cost reduction (depending on how you're calculating things), surely? I would've said Babbling Book casting Arcane Blast, because that damage has gotta come from somewhere.
Reeeeeeal expensive, which makes the analysis easy. It's good for shuffle-centric (i.e. meme) decks, bad for every other Rogue archetype. Unless, of course, we see Pogo Hoppers back in the mainstream meta, which is unlikely and concerning.
My take: it's bad. It's a dead draw on the turn you draw it, and it stands a good chance of being effectively dead (by being vanilla 5/5 or worse) on each subsequent turn. There is a chance it becomes something good on any given turn, but not only do you have to get that roll to pass, you also need to be in a position on that same turn to spend 5 mana on it. And at the end of the day, the only reliable thing you're getting from this card, if you're getting anything reliably at all, is value - you can't rely on it shifting to a good legendary for tempo (like Tirion, since in this case it'd be a 5/5 Tirion earlier than you'd usually play him), you can't rely on it shifting for board clear (because what is even left at this point). Value is the second most likely outcome after vanilla*, and if you want value, there are plenty of other cards that provide it reliably.
*Note - didn't actually go through the legendary list and check this, probably should really. Will make a note to do it later.
Ouch... you would think one wrong name would lead to 3 downvotes haha. But yeah, if the card is as strong as we predict it is, and control is able to push out aggro decks, people can CUT the Sandstorm Elementals to run it and tutor it so we can deal with control decks. Did you think of that?
Assuming you're kidding due to the last sentence, but to be clear - N'zoth shenanigans notwithstanding, control isn't the side Quest Shaman needs to worry about. You're never going to drop the best anti-aggro card in the deck to add more cards that have a major risk of drawing dead. See my comment further up on why this card isn't good enough for a slot anyway
Not bad at all, both should see play. That said, note that people seem to be tunnelling on the highroll potential of Dragoncaster when the reality will often fall short of that margin. To really have a major impact you need to have both a dragon in hand to activate it AND a spell worth casting for free - AND if you're not playing it on 6 then you need a value play to fit in for 1-4 mana as well. If all you're doing is dropping it as a 4/4 for a free Frostbolt and ping on 8, it gets a lot less pretty.
And let's remember that if you're running both dragons and high cost spells then your mage deck's going to be looking pretty heavy.
So if we're looking at a mage deck with a heavy top-end, we're looking at either Big Spell Mage or Highlander Mage, right now. The former is going to be heavily reliant on finding an early (and nerfed) Pocket Galaxy, and after the nerfs to Conjurer's Calling as well as LPG probably won't be all that strong. If we're looking at Highlander Mage, on the other hand, it's Inkmaster Solia but trading 1 less cost for the additional restriction of requiring a dragon in hand (which is inherently less likely in a Highlander deck).
And let's not forget - Inkmaster Solia only saw play in approx. half the Reno Mage decks that have floated to the top of the meta since their inception.
So yeah. Dragoncaster is a solid card, but I don't see it being busted. Arcane Breath, on the other hand, seems extremely potent and should see continuous play so long as mages care about dragons.
Trash for Quest Shaman (see my post on the 5/5 that was revealed earlier for rationale).
Could be playable in some kind of theoretical midrange Shaman, but it'd have to be a heavily tempo-oriented one since this is basically garbage unless you've got full board control. If you do have board control, though, it cements your position nicely - your opponent has to allocate resources to clear off the eggs instead of the board you've already got, or else the subsequent 4/4s will clear off whatever development they managed that turn (and potentially value trade while doing so).
On the fence about this, really, since it'll require a suitable deck to materialise, but it's not -quite- as bad as people seem to think.
Honestly confused at why people keep saying Diving Gryphon is a good card. It absolutely won't see play.
When you're looking at a hunter deck to consider the card in, we're looking at either a) an aggressive deck, or b) Highlander Hunter. There are no other Hunter decks right now, and nothing indicating a likelihood of any others arising as yet. And to immediately cut to the chase on one of these, Diving Gryphon is nowhere near aggressive enough for an aggressive Hunter list. You're running Animal Companions and Eaglehorn Bows there - and there's a lot less chance of finding a slot because you can run two-ofs.
So, let's consider Highlander Hunter. Firstly, note the deck doesn't run many Rush minions to be pulled; basically just Springpaw and Zilliax. Also note we don't necessarily WANT to run more because we have Houndmaster Shaw. Meanwhile, what are you dropping from your 3-drop slot to fit this in?
- Animal Companion? Probably not. It's the closest call we have on the list, but you're dropping solid board presence (including Huffer, who is literally a direct improvement over this in every way) for removal. The deciding factor is that Animal Companion feeds into Zul'jin, which is not the case for Gryphon.
- Eaglehorn Bow? With all Highlander Hunters running fundamentally secret-heavy lists, this seems unlikely. Even without any secret procs, it's better removal than the Gryphon is (two separate removals rather than one, albeit at less power) while also allowing for sudden face damage.
- Masked Contender? Also close, now I look at it, but realistically I don't think you're dropping the Contender here. It slots into curve so beautifully, and contests board rather than removing it. That said, I MIGHT be persuaded on this if we see other Rush minions we actually care about pulling.
- Snip-Snap? Definitely not. Board in a can, and activates more Zilliax value later on.
- Hunter's Pack? Definitely not. Refill that also feeds into Zul'jin. I cannot disagree enough with people who drop this card from Highlander Hunter lists.
For posterity it's also worth noting that we're already running a LOT of 3-drops in a Highlander list. So, the near-inevitable conclusion I have to draw is that you're not fitting this into a list. And can you really say a card is good if it won't go into a list because half a dozen options are better? What good is a card you can't play?
This card is currently being massively overrated by the community, because as usual people are looking at the card in a vacuum instead of looking at the context of the deck. Just because a card has a good battlecry doesn't mean it's going to be busted in Quest Shaman.
Quest Shaman thrives from having a very low curve. This lets it reliably get onto the board to contest aggressive decks, complete quest in a reasonable timescale (which is important to mitigate the inefficiency of missing turn 1 and a card in your opening hand), and maintain steady pressure for the entire game. 5+ mana slots in Quest Shaman are VERY LIMITED. Why do you think people spent the entire expansion (until the Wild card shenanigans) debating Giggling Inventor -v- Former Champ? It's not because they're similar cards, they have fundamentally different approaches. It's because you cannot fit more than 2-3 5+ cost cards into Quest Shaman without jeopardising its reliability for mindless greed.
And even if you COULD fit more in, you would run further copies of Giggles/Champ rather than this card. Direct damage is all well and good, but the thing about face damage is that it does very little until you actually have lethal. Quest Shaman is fundamentally board-centric in play (albeit primarily wide rather than tall), and sees direct damage as a secondary victory route rather than primary. This is for good reason - you can't rely on face damage unless you're dropping an OTK. Board control can be relied on, and will lead to face damage if applied correctly.
So, yeah, the card is not going to be busted in Quest Shaman. It won't even be PLAYED in Quest Shaman after opening week. Right now, it's a solid value card floating in the ether without a deck that really fits it, because Control Shaman prefers 'em bigger.
It's bizarre seeing the reactions to this card - half the comments think it's garbage and half think it's completely busted.
The truth, I feel, is that it's neither - it's an okay card, not particularly strong (sloooow and a high drop competing with a lot of other high drops for a slot), nor particularly weak (triggering on your opponent's turn saves it from being utter garbage).
Its play will depends entirely on whether Control Warlock winds up being a thing, there's no other archetype you'd realistically fit this (except, I suppose, Highlander Warlock if it winds up being less aggressive than the variant we saw this expansion). It's not good enough to draw you to play Control Warlock on its own, but it might be included if you're building the deck anyway.
Unusually, I find myself agreeing with the hype so far. I mean, it's not exactly gamebreaking, but it's a very good card that we should expect to see for the next 15 months - hell, Demonwrath is still seeing play in Wild Renolock even now.
Real simple analysis. Is this going to draw cards for your deck? If so - busted. If not - terribad.
I don't honestly expect Pirate Warrior to be strong, though, even if they print more pirates. Pirate Warrior wasn't really strong because of the pirates alone, but because of the combination of pirates and weapon buffs - the latter being what is sorely missing right now. Even this weapon, as pirate support, is longer-term than pirate warrior would usually want to think - without a lot more weapon buffs it's simply not aggressive enough. You'd probably run this in a Wild version of the deck simply because it could be continually buffed and draw a pirate every turn until the end of the game.
Oh, additional note I forgot to mention in my original post - comparisons to Dragon Soul are honestly pretty useless. That was a weapon in a meta that saw practically every deck running weapon removal, in a deck that ran no other weapons, in a class that was neither tempo-oriented nor board-centric at the time.
Dragon Soul was doomed to fail by the class- and meta-context long before analysis of the card itself could even begin. That is not true of Chenvaala.
Chronobreaker: Ugh. I'll be the first to admit that I've disagreed with the majority view on most of the reveals so far - in part because of my reactionary nature, and in part because in my opinion people don't seem to understand how to properly analyse cards. This one, though, I am 100% confident on, and the majority view seems wholly incorrect as far as I can see it.
This card is not Duskbreaker. It's not trying to be Duskbreaker, and it doesn't need to be Duskbreaker. It's not a reactionary anti-aggro tool, and obviously if you look at the card with that blinkered view it's going to look weaker. What it is, however, is the midrange statline that a dragon-centric Priest build is going to need. The deathrattle is a board complication, asking a question of your opponent before they can go on to answer the rest of the boardstate. It doesn't need to be a reactionary board clear because Priest already has enough of those - what Priest needs right now is midgame staying power to get it to late game (and the tools and value to win in the late game, obviously).
It's not the strongest card in the expansion, but this is a good card and it will see play if draconic Control Priest builds make any headway in the meta.
Kaahrj: Honestly not really sure what to make of this one, I'll admit, but my guess is it's going to be decent. To be clear, it's not anything incredible - it's just a value card, a bag of stats in most cases. However, it's sticky, has the potential for a lot of value, and most importantly, it's correctly priced to potentially see play. I think people are underrating it slightly in some cases because of its 3-cost status, and in a few cases overrating it because of its highroll potential. Looking past both of these, though, the central function of the card so far as I can see is to be a multiplier onto removal - develop something with a lot of stats in the same turn as removing something dangerous. Being cheap means you can slot it in alongside most removal tools, and it being a deathrattle means it slots in alongside AoE.
I wouldn't normally comment to correct someone's spelling, but I feel I should interject to note the name is Violet Hold. Entirely because Violate hold is a different and significantly less PG place.
Not a lot of analysis going on over here aside from 'hunter wat'.
For what it's worth: skeptical that it'll see play. Eaglehorn Bow already does the same thing but better, in any deck that isn't specifically dragon-centric. And as we've surely discussed to death by now, competently-built dragon decks have not historically contained all that many dragons, relatively speaking.
I think it's also worth noting, just as a point of interest more than anything, that this card is fundamentally anti-synergistic with a lot of dragon cards' effects. It's very common for them to be activated by holding another dragon in hand; this card is activated by having a dragon on the board. If you run this card in a dragon deck, it probably won't be particularly rare for you to have to choose between keeping this weapon in play and keeping a dragon in hand to activate your topdeck.
Hm. Interesting. Not playable, but interesting.
No major analysis from me that hasn't already been addressed in the comments below, but will make one point that several people seem to have missed - whether your card becomes cheaper or more expensive, there's still a downside. You're still drawing your opponent a card. It might be more expensive than it normally would be, but it's still an extra resource you gave them. The card being more expensive is going to be irrelevant unless it's specifically a combo piece or you go to fatigue (the latter of which is unlikely if you're running this card).
To be fair, Mecha'thun Lock has been running Doomsayer-Treachery for some time now in high legend lists (in Wild, obviously) because you don't want to run removal that can't be cleansed by Hemet. Obviously Doomsayer is better than this card for that job, just noting that even with all the Wild removal, Treachery still sees play :P
Both posts in this thread are pretty bang on my reasoning too. It's not a bad card, it's a very strong one subjectively and it will see play in every dragon deck. But it's not the world being razed.
It'll discount a limited number of cards in your deck, most likely ten or less in any competitive list. Many of those will be high-drops whose discounted cost will not be all that disproportionately powerful. Overall, looking at a large representative sample of games, I'd expect (and being clear - this isn't scientific at all) to see this card have a significant impact in one in ten of them at most.
Further prediction - this card will be nerfed. It will not be nerfed because it's overly powerful, although T5 will likely present it as being so. It will instead be nerfed because every scrub that eats a one-game-in-a-thousand highroll curve against this card will whine about it endlessly until it's nerfed just to shut them up.
Whilst I disagree with a few of the analyses here, no point me re-posting an opinion I already posted on the individual card pages, so I shall limit myself to only one objection:
Babbling Book x Glyph? That'd produce offspring that generate two cards, or one card with a (1) cost reduction (depending on how you're calculating things), surely? I would've said Babbling Book casting Arcane Blast, because that damage has gotta come from somewhere.
Reeeeeeal expensive, which makes the analysis easy. It's good for shuffle-centric (i.e. meme) decks, bad for every other Rogue archetype. Unless, of course, we see Pogo Hoppers back in the mainstream meta, which is unlikely and concerning.
Hm. Lot of back-and-forth in these comments.
My take: it's bad. It's a dead draw on the turn you draw it, and it stands a good chance of being effectively dead (by being vanilla 5/5 or worse) on each subsequent turn. There is a chance it becomes something good on any given turn, but not only do you have to get that roll to pass, you also need to be in a position on that same turn to spend 5 mana on it. And at the end of the day, the only reliable thing you're getting from this card, if you're getting anything reliably at all, is value - you can't rely on it shifting to a good legendary for tempo (like Tirion, since in this case it'd be a 5/5 Tirion earlier than you'd usually play him), you can't rely on it shifting for board clear (because what is even left at this point). Value is the second most likely outcome after vanilla*, and if you want value, there are plenty of other cards that provide it reliably.
*Note - didn't actually go through the legendary list and check this, probably should really. Will make a note to do it later.
Assuming you're kidding due to the last sentence, but to be clear - N'zoth shenanigans notwithstanding, control isn't the side Quest Shaman needs to worry about. You're never going to drop the best anti-aggro card in the deck to add more cards that have a major risk of drawing dead. See my comment further up on why this card isn't good enough for a slot anyway
Not bad at all, both should see play. That said, note that people seem to be tunnelling on the highroll potential of Dragoncaster when the reality will often fall short of that margin. To really have a major impact you need to have both a dragon in hand to activate it AND a spell worth casting for free - AND if you're not playing it on 6 then you need a value play to fit in for 1-4 mana as well. If all you're doing is dropping it as a 4/4 for a free Frostbolt and ping on 8, it gets a lot less pretty.
And let's remember that if you're running both dragons and high cost spells then your mage deck's going to be looking pretty heavy.
So if we're looking at a mage deck with a heavy top-end, we're looking at either Big Spell Mage or Highlander Mage, right now. The former is going to be heavily reliant on finding an early (and nerfed) Pocket Galaxy, and after the nerfs to Conjurer's Calling as well as LPG probably won't be all that strong. If we're looking at Highlander Mage, on the other hand, it's Inkmaster Solia but trading 1 less cost for the additional restriction of requiring a dragon in hand (which is inherently less likely in a Highlander deck).
And let's not forget - Inkmaster Solia only saw play in approx. half the Reno Mage decks that have floated to the top of the meta since their inception.
So yeah. Dragoncaster is a solid card, but I don't see it being busted. Arcane Breath, on the other hand, seems extremely potent and should see continuous play so long as mages care about dragons.
Trash for Quest Shaman (see my post on the 5/5 that was revealed earlier for rationale).
Could be playable in some kind of theoretical midrange Shaman, but it'd have to be a heavily tempo-oriented one since this is basically garbage unless you've got full board control. If you do have board control, though, it cements your position nicely - your opponent has to allocate resources to clear off the eggs instead of the board you've already got, or else the subsequent 4/4s will clear off whatever development they managed that turn (and potentially value trade while doing so).
On the fence about this, really, since it'll require a suitable deck to materialise, but it's not -quite- as bad as people seem to think.
Honestly confused at why people keep saying Diving Gryphon is a good card. It absolutely won't see play.
When you're looking at a hunter deck to consider the card in, we're looking at either a) an aggressive deck, or b) Highlander Hunter. There are no other Hunter decks right now, and nothing indicating a likelihood of any others arising as yet. And to immediately cut to the chase on one of these, Diving Gryphon is nowhere near aggressive enough for an aggressive Hunter list. You're running Animal Companions and Eaglehorn Bows there - and there's a lot less chance of finding a slot because you can run two-ofs.
So, let's consider Highlander Hunter. Firstly, note the deck doesn't run many Rush minions to be pulled; basically just Springpaw and Zilliax. Also note we don't necessarily WANT to run more because we have Houndmaster Shaw. Meanwhile, what are you dropping from your 3-drop slot to fit this in?
- Animal Companion? Probably not. It's the closest call we have on the list, but you're dropping solid board presence (including Huffer, who is literally a direct improvement over this in every way) for removal. The deciding factor is that Animal Companion feeds into Zul'jin, which is not the case for Gryphon.
- Eaglehorn Bow? With all Highlander Hunters running fundamentally secret-heavy lists, this seems unlikely. Even without any secret procs, it's better removal than the Gryphon is (two separate removals rather than one, albeit at less power) while also allowing for sudden face damage.
- Masked Contender? Also close, now I look at it, but realistically I don't think you're dropping the Contender here. It slots into curve so beautifully, and contests board rather than removing it. That said, I MIGHT be persuaded on this if we see other Rush minions we actually care about pulling.
- Snip-Snap? Definitely not. Board in a can, and activates more Zilliax value later on.
- Hunter's Pack? Definitely not. Refill that also feeds into Zul'jin. I cannot disagree enough with people who drop this card from Highlander Hunter lists.
For posterity it's also worth noting that we're already running a LOT of 3-drops in a Highlander list. So, the near-inevitable conclusion I have to draw is that you're not fitting this into a list. And can you really say a card is good if it won't go into a list because half a dozen options are better? What good is a card you can't play?
This card is currently being massively overrated by the community, because as usual people are looking at the card in a vacuum instead of looking at the context of the deck. Just because a card has a good battlecry doesn't mean it's going to be busted in Quest Shaman.
Quest Shaman thrives from having a very low curve. This lets it reliably get onto the board to contest aggressive decks, complete quest in a reasonable timescale (which is important to mitigate the inefficiency of missing turn 1 and a card in your opening hand), and maintain steady pressure for the entire game. 5+ mana slots in Quest Shaman are VERY LIMITED. Why do you think people spent the entire expansion (until the Wild card shenanigans) debating Giggling Inventor -v- Former Champ? It's not because they're similar cards, they have fundamentally different approaches. It's because you cannot fit more than 2-3 5+ cost cards into Quest Shaman without jeopardising its reliability for mindless greed.
And even if you COULD fit more in, you would run further copies of Giggles/Champ rather than this card. Direct damage is all well and good, but the thing about face damage is that it does very little until you actually have lethal. Quest Shaman is fundamentally board-centric in play (albeit primarily wide rather than tall), and sees direct damage as a secondary victory route rather than primary. This is for good reason - you can't rely on face damage unless you're dropping an OTK. Board control can be relied on, and will lead to face damage if applied correctly.
So, yeah, the card is not going to be busted in Quest Shaman. It won't even be PLAYED in Quest Shaman after opening week. Right now, it's a solid value card floating in the ether without a deck that really fits it, because Control Shaman prefers 'em bigger.
It's bizarre seeing the reactions to this card - half the comments think it's garbage and half think it's completely busted.
The truth, I feel, is that it's neither - it's an okay card, not particularly strong (sloooow and a high drop competing with a lot of other high drops for a slot), nor particularly weak (triggering on your opponent's turn saves it from being utter garbage).
Its play will depends entirely on whether Control Warlock winds up being a thing, there's no other archetype you'd realistically fit this (except, I suppose, Highlander Warlock if it winds up being less aggressive than the variant we saw this expansion). It's not good enough to draw you to play Control Warlock on its own, but it might be included if you're building the deck anyway.
Assuming you mean Sludge Slurper here. And they also run Sandstorm Elemental.
Good card? Probably not. Funny card? Definitely.
Unusually, I find myself agreeing with the hype so far. I mean, it's not exactly gamebreaking, but it's a very good card that we should expect to see for the next 15 months - hell, Demonwrath is still seeing play in Wild Renolock even now.
Real simple analysis. Is this going to draw cards for your deck? If so - busted. If not - terribad.
I don't honestly expect Pirate Warrior to be strong, though, even if they print more pirates. Pirate Warrior wasn't really strong because of the pirates alone, but because of the combination of pirates and weapon buffs - the latter being what is sorely missing right now. Even this weapon, as pirate support, is longer-term than pirate warrior would usually want to think - without a lot more weapon buffs it's simply not aggressive enough. You'd probably run this in a Wild version of the deck simply because it could be continually buffed and draw a pirate every turn until the end of the game.
Oh, additional note I forgot to mention in my original post - comparisons to Dragon Soul are honestly pretty useless. That was a weapon in a meta that saw practically every deck running weapon removal, in a deck that ran no other weapons, in a class that was neither tempo-oriented nor board-centric at the time.
Dragon Soul was doomed to fail by the class- and meta-context long before analysis of the card itself could even begin. That is not true of Chenvaala.