you could put Fencing Coach in the deck and play it the turn prior to shudderwock, then every shudderwock thereafter will get double battlecry!

Go Lorewalker Cho!

This guy is one of the most under-valued cards in the entire game! I play him in several decks and as long as you run >10 spells he can be very useful.

Also in a deck containing only legendaries, any cheap card is useful.

What should the board state look like when I play Zephrys so that he will give me a sorcerers apprentice?

Quote From AliRadicali

Quote From MalcolmReynolds

Quote From AliRadicali

 

This is exactly the kind of mental gymnastics Putontheglasses was talking about. Yes, we get how it works. We're saying it's wildly inconsistent with how the game interacts with other buffs/stat changes. If you, say, hand-buff a minion and then play it, the buff is remembered while the minion is in play. The game "forgets" about buffs, debuffs and other such alterations when the minion leaves play because it dies, gets bounced to hand, shuffled into the deck, w/e. However this bit is irrelevant to the argument, which revolves around discount minions while they're in play after being played for a reduced cost.

 

In a more consistent hearthstone, a giant would remember what manacost it was played for as long as it remains in play. Of course once it dies, you'd res it with it printed mana cost.

 

Fixing this silly and inconsistent handling of mana costs would instantly fix a bunch of oppressive interactions involving discountable minions and cards that care about mana cost. It'd make the conjuring nerf unnecessary. It'd make the game more intuitive and fair.

I don't think the mana changing back to its original after being played is inconsistent or silly. Cost changing from hand is its own mechanic, and it is supposed to work like this.

Handbuffing works differently because it is a different mechanic in the same way Lone Champion and Proud Defender are different mechanics.

 

 

 

Saying that it's the way it is because that's the way it is is a nice tautology, but entirely unhelpful.

 

Again, we get it, it works like this at present. I'm presenting reasons why it ought not work that way, because it's inconsistent with other mechanics and it results in highly exploitable card interactions.

 

Let me give an example of an interaction that makes no sense intuitively under the present schema: You play a 1 mana Sea Giant in Magic Carpet zoo: It gets +1/+0 and Rush because you played it for 1, but by the time the buff is applied it's a 10-drop. Even if you're quite familiar with the rules you wouldn't know if this would work just reading the cards because the Carpet says "After", so the giant costs ten when the rush buff is applied.

Now am I saying this should be changed because of one fairly rare scenario in last season's Zoo deck? No, what I'm trying to illustrate is that the suggested change wouldn't just be a balancing tool for evolve-type effects on discounted minions, it would make the game more intuitive for a large number of interactions between cards that care about mana costs and cards that discount themselves. I see it as hitting two birds with one stone and I'm struggling to see any downside.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. 

We have both voiced our views on the matter, and at this point it is just my opinion against yours. 

Quote From AliRadicali

 

This is exactly the kind of mental gymnastics Putontheglasses was talking about. Yes, we get how it works. We're saying it's wildly inconsistent with how the game interacts with other buffs/stat changes. If you, say, hand-buff a minion and then play it, the buff is remembered while the minion is in play. The game "forgets" about buffs, debuffs and other such alterations when the minion leaves play because it dies, gets bounced to hand, shuffled into the deck, w/e. However this bit is irrelevant to the argument, which revolves around discount minions while they're in play after being played for a reduced cost.

 

In a more consistent hearthstone, a giant would remember what manacost it was played for as long as it remains in play. Of course once it dies, you'd res it with it printed mana cost.

 

Fixing this silly and inconsistent handling of mana costs would instantly fix a bunch of oppressive interactions involving discountable minions and cards that care about mana cost. It'd make the conjuring nerf unnecessary. It'd make the game more intuitive and fair.

I don't think the mana changing back to its original after being played is inconsistent or silly. Cost changing from hand is its own mechanic, and it is supposed to work like this.

Handbuffing works differently because it is a different mechanic in the same way Lone Champion and Proud Defender are different mechanics.

Quote From Putontheglasses

This combo doesn’t specifically need a nerf but there is no good reason why minions shouldn’t have the card cost used to play them. This would fix the mutate or transform combo with other mana discounted minions as well. There is absolutely no good argument against this other than developer laziness to code this.

Anyone trying to do mental gymnastics to argue against this is just being contrary or white knighting.

You really don't have to do mental gymnastics to understand why it works like this. The base cost is 7, so when the cost is increased by 1 it goes to 8. It is the same as if a minion with Power Word: Shield dies and then is resurrected but it does not keep the +2 health buff. The Resurrection mechanic does not care about anything that has changed the minion, it will bring back the same base minion

Cards like fleshshaper or any other giant could read "you can play this card for (1) less for each X" but it would just be a lot simpler to say "this costs (1) less for each X". The change in cost is not a permanent buff, it is an aura that goes away when it is played.

I built a weird shaman deck that was kinda a control deck and kinda a zoo deck, besically you survived and played lots of minions until you could play either one or two Bloodlusts and win. 

so far I am 4-0

this is and aggro face deck, you don't need a combo that clears the board.

You should be more focused on building a board than destroying it.

Quests should be easy to complete because everyone would rather play what they want to play instead of something they don't want to play.

Let me explain; lets say there was a quest that said 'win 2 games with a deck that has at least 10 elementals' this would inspire you to play a elemental deck. But the issue is that you either A. are already open to playing an elemental deck and you don't need much prompting, or B. don't want to play an elemental deck but now you have to.

You either already want to play a off-meta or different deck and you will continue to play hearthstone in the same way you already would, or you are a competitive player and you are frustrated that now you have to play a off-meta or different deck against your will. You could always just re-roll it, but you can only do that once a day. And if you re-roll into a quest like this than you are either forced to play a deck you don't like or just wait until the next day. 

The purpose of the quests right now is not to prompt players to play something else, the purpose is to give them gold. The requirement on the quests is not to shape the meta, or change what the player wants to ladder with, but it is so that the person actually has to play Hearthstone to get the gold. It stops people from just logging on and off to get gold every day.  

first time my deck was not all too good, but I was able to get him down to 130 HP or so.

my next run I had 2 captured flags, and I had like 6 babbling books in my deck, and thanks to Bob one of them was always in my starting hand.

I steamrolled him pretty hard the second time, he never stood a chance.

Quote From ColinthePyro

 

Literally any deck with the perfect curve is unfair. Your theoretical situation where your Quest Shaman opponent who can't play anything on turn 1 goes super wide on turn 2  (and for some reason you don't respond and just go face?) just isn't likely at all. If you're playing Zoo, your'e unfavored in that matchup. That's ok, decks can be bad against certain combos. Calm down, your'e not helping your case by calling people who disagree with you a dunce.

actually, this is a very good point, they literally have 2 mana to do things before turn 3.

you mentioned about a million times in this thread how broken it is to get this on 3, that almost never happens. lets say the shaman goes first, they play 0 minions, you have a one drop, there is now 1 minion. turn 2 your opponent can't play sludge slurper because of overload, so lets say they play the rat, then you play your 2 drop and maybe coin a one drop, there are now 4 minions in play and three of them are yours, only now does it cost 3. at this point the shaman has drawn 6 cards out of their deck, 2 of them were quest and slurper, so 2 of the other 4 would have to be fleshshaper and mutate.

the only time it happens on 3 is when both you and your opponent draw perfectly, and you had the opportunity to trade. It can come out on turn 4 much more consistently, because at that point there are probably enough minions that you don't have to worry about the cost and it all just comes down to drawing both fleshshaper and mutate.

I don't think the combo needs a nerf. I have played a bunch of games with and against this deck, and this combo rarely comes out, and when it does it is not game ending, unless you roll a tirion. the combo is strong, but far from needing a nerf.

cards that add random cards to your hand won't give you epic or legendary cards, I tried to build a deck that could cheat out bigger guys, and I fought against a burgle rogue. Neither one of us got any epics or legendaries.

*edit* never mind, they already mentioned that in the blue-post.

Isn't it kinda contradictory to play both the quest and Hagatha the Witch?

And when is the correct time in the game to play hagatha and change your hero power?

I haven't played this deck much but I have a lot of experience with the shaman class.

Swampqueen Hagatha is a good card, but not at all essential. she is a decent value generator, and I am sure that with the double battlecry she does a lot. but you could replace her with another good value generator and shudderwock activator.

Quote From AliRadicali

 

Cards/comboes that create big minions are not inherently a problem. King Phaoris, Astromancer, etc. are powerful, but fair. It's when you can hit that power spike on turn 3/4 that it becomes a big issue. And yes that goes for Cleef too, it's absurd he hasn't been HoF'ed or nerfed to four mana considering how many games, even at a high level, are decided by a turn two or three huge Cleef.

People talk about cleef and they say he is super good and he should be HoF or nerfed. But maybe I have seen like 10 edwins in my 2-3 years of playing hearthstone. I really don't see him much ever and he has never seemed like he has been good enough to need to get nerfed. Why do you think edwin should be HoFed? is he really that much of a problem?

I thought thats how it worked.

thanks for answering, I don't mind if it was a little late.

I just won a match because I was able to get a Grommash Hellscream on turn 4.

I don't think the combo is too oppressive because it is inconsistent, but when you pull it off it can be devastating. I do think they should change the way it works because losing to that combo just feels so bad, even if it doesn't happen often.

Quote From ShanghaiKid

I'm not going to lie this class is ridiculous OP haha. 

this basically

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3tvB8XFG3g

not really relevant, just what this reminded me of.

if you made this deck a wild deck you could also include Sideshow Spelleater which would be a much more reliable way to copy the opponent's quest. especially because then you wouldn't have to complete the quest yourself, and also the window of opportunity would be waaaaay bigger.