I like decks that establish boards and buff them up to make them very sticky. I don't know if this card is fast enough, but I think it's got potential.
I like cards that make players think about positioning, but I don't think will be great without Spell Power (which Shaman is getting, it looks like) after the early game. I suppose it depends how wide the most popular decks will go.
In the grim darkness of the far future, when Hearthstone has less than 100 concurrent players and all hope seems lost... from the burning smoke of Orgrimmar comes a hulking figure, with a voice as deep as the mountain and an axe sharpened to a razor's edge. His hooves shake the ground with each step and his horns glisten with the arterial blood of slain foes. He speaks only five words, but they are all that need to be said.
"I, Gamon, will save us."
Upon his arrival, Hearthstone is revitalized and lives for another 10,000 years.
Sure, it'd be great, but would it be affordable? What would they charge? $100? $50? $20? We all know $80 currently doesn't get a whole set, but that's due to the randomness of card packs. If you were able to buy entire sets at once, would extra cards be strictly disenchanting fodder used for crafting Gold versions? (That sounds awesome.)
Point is, unless some core systems get overhauled, the most I could see them offering is a portion of a set as a one-time purchase. Maybe 50% of it. Alternatively, they could split a set and release fewer cards at first, then the rest of it in a mini-set like this one (with a guaranteed purchase.)
I think it's very important what they're gonna announce soon™ regarding the changes coming in April.
Definitely. I wasn't trying to insinuate that you weren't a responsible dataminer! Sorry if it came across that way. I support datamining more from a "ooh, I wonder what that is, let's speculate about it (hopefully in a positive way and have fun)" standpoint than a "shine a flashlight on the stuff they're hiding" one, but both are valid uses.
I don't think datamining is overly damaging, though I broadly agree with your final point. Responsible dataminers go to extra lengths to point out that datamining may include abandoned, experimental, or out-of-context data. As long as the information they're presenting is true and accurate to the best of their knowledge (and it usually is), it's up to individuals to form their own opinions on it... with those disclaimers in mind. Sure, because of the "telephone game effect" it's easy for "new Hero art found in latest Hearthstone patch" to morph into "WE'RE GETTING A NEW HERO IN THE NEXT EXPANSION GUARANTEED," but I think that happens regardless of how the information is obtained. A developer's statement gets turned into a promise; a content creator gets access to a sneak peek and drops hints on social media, and people mistake them for solid proof of new content. Every one of us chooses how we react to each event, even if there's uncertainty or misconception around the original data source.
Good article, even if it's "negative." You want to help a developer? Explain how you feel about a certain feature and, most importantly, WHY you feel that way! Contrary to popular belief (and one of the points in this very article), you don't need to suggest how to fix something in order to provide constructive feedback! If you do, great, but don't do it as a replacement for explaining why. Developers look at "this sucks and this is why I feel that way" posts and come up with feasible solutions. Then, it's a matter of prioritizing how and when to implement them; y'know, project management, budget, all that crap we don't hear about. Often, it'll take iteration (more than one attempt) to fix something, so continual feedback is crucial. Just be respectful about it! Emotional feedback is fine, so long as you don't personally insult the developers and you give them information to help them fix what made you mad.
If I remember correctly (haven't been to the Faire in a while), there's a target-shooting minigame, and such games in real life often have stuffed animals as rewards. Target-shooting would match the effect, as in taking a shot for each card you played this turn.
I like the concept. Because the keyword doesn't require you to play a card of higher cost and the Corrupt card in the same turn, it offers more deck building flexibility. It also lets Blizzard create Corrupt cards that cost more than 5 Mana; maybe that 9 Mana Corrupt card can be used as a reliable finisher in a slower deck, requiring you play a 10 Mana card first (unless its cost is reduced, of course). Although not all Corrupt cards will have a low to mid cost, I think the majority of them will (let's say, 2-6 Mana), which gives cards that may otherwise not be as useful in the late game a chance to be played. It also presents the skill check of, "Do I play this on curve for tempo or save it for value?"
I'm a bit worried about Y'Shaarj, but let's see all the Corrupt cards first.
In my opinion, they had only one objective with this new system: be more rewarding in terms of collecting cards than the old one. Waiting for the full track to crunch the numbers and find out if it is.
I like decks that establish boards and buff them up to make them very sticky. I don't know if this card is fast enough, but I think it's got potential.
At least it's not understatted. Looking forward to the Trolden clips of this guy killing people through a wall of Taunts.
Only seems decent if you play it on curve, and even then it's not very enticing. Maybe Warlock will get board-buffing tools in the expansion.
I like cards that make players think about positioning, but I don't think will be great without Spell Power (which Shaman is getting, it looks like) after the early game. I suppose it depends how wide the most popular decks will go.
Certainly not the most exciting Legendary, but one that should fit nicely into Shaman decks and give them more options to deal damage.
A nice 1-drop with Beast synergy and a nice bonus if it can be copied or cycled. I'm assuming the buffs stack.
Pretty average, at best. I don't think Zug Zug will carry anyone to victory.
Very versatile, though its base form is a bit weak; find a way to buff it.
An all-around strong card, especially if Druid can cheat it out a few turns earlier.
In the grim darkness of the far future, when Hearthstone has less than 100 concurrent players and all hope seems lost... from the burning smoke of Orgrimmar comes a hulking figure, with a voice as deep as the mountain and an axe sharpened to a razor's edge. His hooves shake the ground with each step and his horns glisten with the arterial blood of slain foes. He speaks only five words, but they are all that need to be said.
"I, Gamon, will save us."
Upon his arrival, Hearthstone is revitalized and lives for another 10,000 years.
By the Holy Light!
Sure, it'd be great, but would it be affordable? What would they charge? $100? $50? $20? We all know $80 currently doesn't get a whole set, but that's due to the randomness of card packs. If you were able to buy entire sets at once, would extra cards be strictly disenchanting fodder used for crafting Gold versions? (That sounds awesome.)
Point is, unless some core systems get overhauled, the most I could see them offering is a portion of a set as a one-time purchase. Maybe 50% of it. Alternatively, they could split a set and release fewer cards at first, then the rest of it in a mini-set like this one (with a guaranteed purchase.)
I think it's very important what they're gonna announce soon™ regarding the changes coming in April.
That YouTube exclusivity deal was only for a year, right? I sure hope so.
Definitely. I wasn't trying to insinuate that you weren't a responsible dataminer! Sorry if it came across that way. I support datamining more from a "ooh, I wonder what that is, let's speculate about it (hopefully in a positive way and have fun)" standpoint than a "shine a flashlight on the stuff they're hiding" one, but both are valid uses.
I don't think datamining is overly damaging, though I broadly agree with your final point. Responsible dataminers go to extra lengths to point out that datamining may include abandoned, experimental, or out-of-context data. As long as the information they're presenting is true and accurate to the best of their knowledge (and it usually is), it's up to individuals to form their own opinions on it... with those disclaimers in mind. Sure, because of the "telephone game effect" it's easy for "new Hero art found in latest Hearthstone patch" to morph into "WE'RE GETTING A NEW HERO IN THE NEXT EXPANSION GUARANTEED," but I think that happens regardless of how the information is obtained. A developer's statement gets turned into a promise; a content creator gets access to a sneak peek and drops hints on social media, and people mistake them for solid proof of new content. Every one of us chooses how we react to each event, even if there's uncertainty or misconception around the original data source.
Good article, even if it's "negative." You want to help a developer? Explain how you feel about a certain feature and, most importantly, WHY you feel that way! Contrary to popular belief (and one of the points in this very article), you don't need to suggest how to fix something in order to provide constructive feedback! If you do, great, but don't do it as a replacement for explaining why. Developers look at "this sucks and this is why I feel that way" posts and come up with feasible solutions. Then, it's a matter of prioritizing how and when to implement them; y'know, project management, budget, all that crap we don't hear about. Often, it'll take iteration (more than one attempt) to fix something, so continual feedback is crucial. Just be respectful about it! Emotional feedback is fine, so long as you don't personally insult the developers and you give them information to help them fix what made you mad.
My morning brain thought the Silence would be applied to the 4/4 copy. Seemed utterly pointless :P
If I remember correctly (haven't been to the Faire in a while), there's a target-shooting minigame, and such games in real life often have stuffed animals as rewards. Target-shooting would match the effect, as in taking a shot for each card you played this turn.
I like the concept. Because the keyword doesn't require you to play a card of higher cost and the Corrupt card in the same turn, it offers more deck building flexibility. It also lets Blizzard create Corrupt cards that cost more than 5 Mana; maybe that 9 Mana Corrupt card can be used as a reliable finisher in a slower deck, requiring you play a 10 Mana card first (unless its cost is reduced, of course). Although not all Corrupt cards will have a low to mid cost, I think the majority of them will (let's say, 2-6 Mana), which gives cards that may otherwise not be as useful in the late game a chance to be played. It also presents the skill check of, "Do I play this on curve for tempo or save it for value?"
I'm a bit worried about Y'Shaarj, but let's see all the Corrupt cards first.
In my opinion, they had only one objective with this new system: be more rewarding in terms of collecting cards than the old one. Waiting for the full track to crunch the numbers and find out if it is.