@Demonxz95 I’ve received the “polarizing” argument a lot on this card, so I already have a response ready:
“Polarizing” is when a card either makes you win in a matchup it is strong against, or makes you lose in a matchup it is weak against. This is neither.
I assume a player with exact lethal would look at the board and say “Oh look, I have perfect lethal, but my opponent has a secret. I’ve checked for most secrets , so it could be that Legendary one... I guess I’ll use most of my damage this turn, and leave him with 1 or 2 Health next turn”. That thought process would be pretty normal for everybody IMO, giving you at least one more turn worth of survivability. That’s where it’s useful - it forces decks to play around it, giving you more time.
Of course, there are decks that will do that better or worse (giving you the card’s varying strength against matchups, nothing new), but it’s not as polarizing as you suggest because it probably won’t ever actually win or lose you the game since the effect itself would be more of a cautionary factor than an actual game winner (like Uther’s horsemen)
TL;DR not too strong because it can be played around, not too weak because it needs to be played around.
MB — 5/5, just a neat card, not much to say. I think definitely not OP at 4 Mana, maybe even weak but idk. I Doubt it’ll be interesting enough to be winner material though
RtT — -1(?) star for aesthetics (art is a bit too realistic for HS, can be fixed easily though. Let’s just say there’s no shortage of Poison Ivy-like artworks out there… I suggest “Pollen Polluter Pam” on artstation or maybe even “Roselia Venithorn” on HearthCards, that one might be too OP of an art though), so 4-5/5
Entanglement — 5/5, thought it might be too strong but considering your opponent can play around it quite easily it seems ok
Nirast
Show Spoiler
LM — -1 star for flavor (DH/Hunter feels very forced, this would be a Neutral if anything), -1 star for idea/mechanic (mechanically speaking this card is very awkward, going Dormant has always “reset” the minion e.g. Sherazin and changing it for this card feels very counter-intuitive), so 3/5
linkblade91
Show Spoiler
BB — -1 star for aesthetics (no token?), so 4/5
anchorm4n
Show Spoiler
TPR — -2 stars for idea (Epic card that is designed specifically to support a specific Common card… really weird to me), so 3/5
BI — -1 star for aesthetics/syntax (“it” in the title should be capitalized), -1 star for aesthetics/flavor (feels kind of awkward theme-wise… yeah, it’s technically plant based, but the spirit of the card here is the WoW event, not the vegetation. I feel like it’s teetering on the very edge of the intended flavor for this comp), so 3/5
Fedrion
Show Spoiler
Peacebloom — -2 stars for idea (not very innovative… just a worse Frost Nova), so 3/5
cydonianknight
Show Spoiler
CM — -1 star for balance (too strong IMO because of the possibility to trade and destroy a chosen minion, change it to 0 Attack and I would give it 5 stars. Also makes more sense for an inanimate object to not be able to attack lol), -1 star for aesthetics (flavor issue, see previous comment), so 3/5. All of this referring to the “destroy a minion” Deathrattle version, which I like a lot more
@Demonxz95 I thought people didn’t mind anachronism if made with a custom watermark? It doesn’t purport to belong to any specific expansion after all, so it should be above time-flux issues
If it doesn't belong to a specific expansion, then it shouldn't use a keyword that's exclusive to one expansion because then that is a time-flux issue.
That's the way I look at it at least. I realize that I care more about this than anyone else, but it takes way from the card for me.
So you’re saying that this should’ve been a Scholomance/Barrens watermark? Or are you saying that these types of effects shouldn’t be made?
@Demonxz95 I thought people didn’t mind anachronism if made with a custom watermark? It doesn’t purport to belong to any specific expansion after all, so it should be above time-flux issues
Yes pls
@Demonxz95 I’ve received the “polarizing” argument a lot on this card, so I already have a response ready:
“Polarizing” is when a card either makes you win in a matchup it is strong against, or makes you lose in a matchup it is weak against. This is neither.
I assume a player with exact lethal would look at the board and say “Oh look, I have perfect lethal, but my opponent has a secret. I’ve checked for most secrets , so it could be that Legendary one... I guess I’ll use most of my damage this turn, and leave him with 1 or 2 Health next turn”. That thought process would be pretty normal for everybody IMO, giving you at least one more turn worth of survivability. That’s where it’s useful - it forces decks to play around it, giving you more time.
Of course, there are decks that will do that better or worse (giving you the card’s varying strength against matchups, nothing new), but it’s not as polarizing as you suggest because it probably won’t ever actually win or lose you the game since the effect itself would be more of a cautionary factor than an actual game winner (like Uther’s horsemen)
TL;DR not too strong because it can be played around, not too weak because it needs to be played around.
Vulgar Homunculus?
My pen is twice as big - deals 2 damage as opposed to Pen Flinger’s 1
Costs twice as much - costs 2
If you don’t cheat - “cheat” as in summoning it without playing it
I’ll suck out your blood - it damages you
Anything being done about this?
Welcome to the leaderboard @aposteljoe!
Mfw I get writer’s block in my own theme FeelsBadMan
still, here’s something
@Live4vrRdieTryn got it!
Which “er”, which thing,
became the “ling”
and new splitting,
with it did bring?
Ancient Void Hound
@anchorm4n no worries mate :)
for the riddle, I have no idea. Maybe something with the iconic LotR eagles for the first part?
Spot on! I think you’re starting to get used to my meta riddles lol
Nope
By changing just the middle,
the one before answers the riddle!
Feedback:
Demonxz95
MB — 5/5, just a neat card, not much to say. I think definitely not OP at 4 Mana, maybe even weak but idk. I Doubt it’ll be interesting enough to be winner material though
RtT — -1(?) star for aesthetics (art is a bit too realistic for HS, can be fixed easily though. Let’s just say there’s no shortage of Poison Ivy-like artworks out there… I suggest “Pollen Polluter Pam” on artstation or maybe even “Roselia Venithorn” on HearthCards, that one might be too OP of an art though), so 4-5/5
Entanglement — 5/5, thought it might be too strong but considering your opponent can play around it quite easily it seems ok
Nirast
LM — -1 star for flavor (DH/Hunter feels very forced, this would be a Neutral if anything), -1 star for idea/mechanic (mechanically speaking this card is very awkward, going Dormant has always “reset” the minion e.g. Sherazin and changing it for this card feels very counter-intuitive), so 3/5
linkblade91
BB — -1 star for aesthetics (no token?), so 4/5
anchorm4n
TPR — -2 stars for idea (Epic card that is designed specifically to support a specific Common card… really weird to me), so 3/5
BI — -1 star for aesthetics/syntax (“it” in the title should be capitalized), -1 star for aesthetics/flavor (feels kind of awkward theme-wise… yeah, it’s technically plant based, but the spirit of the card here is the WoW event, not the vegetation. I feel like it’s teetering on the very edge of the intended flavor for this comp), so 3/5
Fedrion
Peacebloom — -2 stars for idea (not very innovative… just a worse Frost Nova), so 3/5
cydonianknight
CM — -1 star for balance (too strong IMO because of the possibility to trade and destroy a chosen minion, change it to 0 Attack and I would give it 5 stars. Also makes more sense for an inanimate object to not be able to attack lol), -1 star for aesthetics (flavor issue, see previous comment), so 3/5. All of this referring to the “destroy a minion” Deathrattle version, which I like a lot more
Fool's Bane?
Synergises with The Caverns Below. Now with a 100% less anachronism BTW!
EEYYYYYYY first time winning with a card created specifically for the comp! Thanks everyone :D
So you’re saying that this should’ve been a Scholomance/Barrens watermark? Or are you saying that these types of effects shouldn’t be made?
@Demonxz95 I thought people didn’t mind anachronism if made with a custom watermark? It doesn’t purport to belong to any specific expansion after all, so it should be above time-flux issues
iOS 12.5.1
Safari 12.1