For Edwin alone, you can simply replace Fan of Knives, which is the current "tech card", or one Elven Minstrel.
Maybe i should write this down...
As for the coins themselves, they help with Combo cards, and in general they help with regaining the Tempo wasted by the initial Bazaar Burglary, by unlocking a card that would otherwise cost too much for a given early turn.
Personally, I'm all-in for buffs here and there. Preferably NOT on legendaries tho (as one might decide to disenchant if it is originally trash, it'd be VERY bad to find it very powerful because of a buff later).
However, Buffs must be performed in a way that is even safer and stricter than the original pre-release testing phase. A buffed card should never ever be touched again, in both Standard and Wild. If they are unsure, the card should NOT be buffed.
Because reverting a buff suggests the devs are just sprinkling tweaks randomly, and/or carelessly of the playerbase. I don't want to play a game with such a devteam behind it. Even if untrue, that is what a reverted buff suggests. 2 of them even!
The game is virtual, but it is no PTR, and players spend gametime, and even money, in order to get their cards.
So honestly I don't mind buffs that are unable to revamp a card. That's what happens in every expansion: useless cards exist, and if a cards stays useless, nothing changes.
But I totally regret buffs that later must be reverted.
The thing about the token actor idea I disagree with is that the 1/1 is still a Y'Shaarj or a Rag or a Obsidian or a Lich King or any powerful minion. Sure Resurrecting it only makes it still be a 1/1.
However, the issue is that it is still a powerful late game effect being played in the early part of the game. Also, this idea is heavily targeted only to tone down Big Priest and ignores that Barnes is a Neutral card. This idea will only kill Barnes from being played in other Classes.
If Barnes was a Priest card, I would fully 100% support this idea but it is not.
Provide winrates, and high ranks, basically create meta-breakers or meta-breaker variants of existing decks, and prove it with deck trackers.
Alternatively, if your deck is not super strong, but at least viable, you can still "decorate" it with an interesting theme (based on the cards themselves), to be included in the deck title, and to be detailed in the deck description. it becomes more alluring.
You can even come up with a deck concept, say you want to build a Highlander deck with Zephrys the Great, and then try to complete it with cards fitting a theme (this is what I did with the deck in my current signature). Or even just start from a theme, and make a meme deck. As long as the theme is solid or entertaining, the deck will be noticed.
Ofc it's better if the deck itself is also viable.
Add the link to your signature, be an active forum member, and eventually someone will notice them, and maybe upvote.
You basically have to build a narrative around your deck. The more meme your deck is, the stronger the deck narrative must be, in order to be noticed. If you have both deck strength, and deck narrative, the likes are bound to skyrocket.
PS: always give your own upvote to your decks. From 0 to 1. It means more chances to get noticed. Once you reach 2 or 3, you have fair chances to be highlighted by the website.
First of all: refining is a long and complex process, including honing your own skills with the pace of the new deck, which is not a granted thing. Like, at all.
Secondly, homebrewing can often fail, and very frequently it just performs up to viability at best, like t3 or similar. It's very rare to homebrew a meta-breaker deck. You should never expect that.
And in any case, point #1 must be upheld before judging. It requires time, a variable amount of time, but definitely not just a handful of games (unless you find the flaw is so big that any meta deck can consistently hit it).
eg. I reached the final stage of my Highlander Rogue, in its Shadowdancer form, only few days ago, and i've been tinkering with it, with many failures and complete hoverhauls, since release day.
Especially in a game that requires resources, bought with gametime or real money.
And the community is not asking for changes afaik, just more frequent content release, which is another story.
The game needs good changes, not just changes.
If one can't answer a t2 extra arms, they should adjust their decks accordingly. The card is strong now, but definitely not as broken as to be unanswerable.
Priest deserves to be hit only in the old summon/resurrect cards. Basically Wild. The rest of the class is absolutely fine, and hitting Extra Arms is completely undeserved.
More in general tho, reverting buffs, right or wrong, would be a huge failure. Much worse than simply nerfing cards.
I don't want the game to get in a continuous hysteria of buffs and nerfs on the same cards.
Adding random cards to your hand from a large pool is never going to be consistent, I think. Stonehill Defender was consistent in Odd Paladin because there were two great class cards it could discover, but in Wild I now count 6 options and while most are decent, they're not at the same level as Tarim and Tirion. Mana Cyclone is somewhat consistent, but it operates on a relatively small pool of only class cards of reasonable quality; if Glacial Mysteries were still in Standard, I think Cyclone would be less popular.
Ethereal Peddler. If they started printing more cards like this, Thief Rogue would become scary even in Wild.
Efficient generators and efficient synergies.
The problem so far is that most generators and most synergies have been value-oriented, without enough Tempo.
I also had to restrain myself from cards that i consider staple for Tempo.
eg Loatheb! Or Vilespine Slayer.
For Edwin alone, you can simply replace Fan of Knives, which is the current "tech card", or one Elven Minstrel.
Maybe i should write this down...
As for the coins themselves, they help with Combo cards, and in general they help with regaining the Tempo wasted by the initial Bazaar Burglary, by unlocking a card that would otherwise cost too much for a given early turn.
EDIT: removed the knives for good ol' Edwin.
Personally, I'm all-in for buffs here and there. Preferably NOT on legendaries tho (as one might decide to disenchant if it is originally trash, it'd be VERY bad to find it very powerful because of a buff later).
However, Buffs must be performed in a way that is even safer and stricter than the original pre-release testing phase. A buffed card should never ever be touched again, in both Standard and Wild. If they are unsure, the card should NOT be buffed.
Because reverting a buff suggests the devs are just sprinkling tweaks randomly, and/or carelessly of the playerbase. I don't want to play a game with such a devteam behind it. Even if untrue, that is what a reverted buff suggests. 2 of them even!
The game is virtual, but it is no PTR, and players spend gametime, and even money, in order to get their cards.
So honestly I don't mind buffs that are unable to revamp a card. That's what happens in every expansion: useless cards exist, and if a cards stays useless, nothing changes.
But I totally regret buffs that later must be reverted.
I think he can, if he unlocked the first wing when it was still part of Standard.
I can complete my own Blackrock, but I can't do the same with Naxxramas.
And yeah, it sounds like a good idea, considering the incoming nerf on Barnes.
Also, Karazhan in general contains some cards that are still good today for Wild format (eg. Maelstrom Portal, Cloaked Huntress, Cat Trick, Ethereal Peddler, etc).
Barnes into Y'Shaarj, Rage Unbound, on turn-4 is a problem in ANY deck, ie Spell Hunter.
Even if Spell Hunter is not very popular now, it doesn't mean the event is more pleasant.
It is still a problem now on turn-5 btw, just slightly better.
BP just had the best usage of Barnes, but it is/was not the only problematic one.
Nerfing Barnes was correct. Problem is it is an insufficient nerf for the whole problematic of Big minions.
Better than nothing, but BP population won't decrease by an inch, and they will be just as annoying as ever.
Simple mana nerfs are good to balance competitive decks, by slightly decreasing their winrate.
But BP is not played because it is competitive. It's barely viable. BP is played because it is broken, while viable.
This nerf makes them neither less broken, nor less viable. Not as much as a meme deck should be.
Bad buff failure.
Bad nerf in general.
Cheap nerf, not sure it's the best one...
Surely 2 turns is a lot, but do CW have any hard time at delaying the game?
If we were equal to devs, we'd have their jobs and their salary. I am not saying it is easy, but it is their responsibility. ;)
As i said, it's ok to buff. But if it is a daring one, and you are forced to revert it, the devs give the idea to be clueless about their job.
Or careless towards their customers.
Neither option sounds good to me.
Design new cards to shake up the meta.
Design cards better, if you want to shake up the meta.
Buff wisely if you want to shake up the meta.
Designing bad cards, buffing, and then reverting, that's kinda lame, when you have all the above options available.
Because it means buffs were a huge fail.
And buffs are a daring action that is performed against the verdict of the final testing team.
Which means, why do they test cards at all?
See the point?
Nerf itself is ok. The whole process is a big failure.
I reiterate: reverting buffs is a HUGE fail, independently of how needed the nerfs are.
I appreciate the nerf to Barnes, although i doubt it will be enough to push Big Priest back to the meme population, where it belongs...
Provide winrates, and high ranks, basically create meta-breakers or meta-breaker variants of existing decks, and prove it with deck trackers.
Alternatively, if your deck is not super strong, but at least viable, you can still "decorate" it with an interesting theme (based on the cards themselves), to be included in the deck title, and to be detailed in the deck description. it becomes more alluring.
You can even come up with a deck concept, say you want to build a Highlander deck with Zephrys the Great, and then try to complete it with cards fitting a theme (this is what I did with the deck in my current signature). Or even just start from a theme, and make a meme deck. As long as the theme is solid or entertaining, the deck will be noticed.
Ofc it's better if the deck itself is also viable.
Add the link to your signature, be an active forum member, and eventually someone will notice them, and maybe upvote.
You basically have to build a narrative around your deck. The more meme your deck is, the stronger the deck narrative must be, in order to be noticed. If you have both deck strength, and deck narrative, the likes are bound to skyrocket.
PS: always give your own upvote to your decks. From 0 to 1. It means more chances to get noticed. Once you reach 2 or 3, you have fair chances to be highlighted by the website.
You're welcome.
Sonya shadowdancer is definitely a strong card in this deck, even moreso because largely unexpected, and can lead to ludicrous turns.
But you can playtest the deck, and decide if you like it, even without her, as long as you have the rest of the cards.
ie. I've been playing it with Saronite Chain Gang instead of Zilliax for a while.
First of all: refining is a long and complex process, including honing your own skills with the pace of the new deck, which is not a granted thing. Like, at all.
Secondly, homebrewing can often fail, and very frequently it just performs up to viability at best, like t3 or similar. It's very rare to homebrew a meta-breaker deck. You should never expect that.
And in any case, point #1 must be upheld before judging. It requires time, a variable amount of time, but definitely not just a handful of games (unless you find the flaw is so big that any meta deck can consistently hit it).
eg. I reached the final stage of my Highlander Rogue, in its Shadowdancer form, only few days ago, and i've been tinkering with it, with many failures and complete hoverhauls, since release day.
Changes for the sake of changes are bad.
Especially in a game that requires resources, bought with gametime or real money.
And the community is not asking for changes afaik, just more frequent content release, which is another story.
The game needs good changes, not just changes.
If one can't answer a t2 extra arms, they should adjust their decks accordingly. The card is strong now, but definitely not as broken as to be unanswerable.
Priest deserves to be hit only in the old summon/resurrect cards. Basically Wild. The rest of the class is absolutely fine, and hitting Extra Arms is completely undeserved.
More in general tho, reverting buffs, right or wrong, would be a huge failure. Much worse than simply nerfing cards.
I don't want the game to get in a continuous hysteria of buffs and nerfs on the same cards.
Yeah sure.
What i meant was strong cards that generate Tempo upon already efficient Value generators.
Thief Rogue is not hopeless. It just needs to get strongly supported in the Tempo stats (instead of sheer Value).
Isn't it a bit early to be sure of which nerfs to apply?
It almost sounds as if they already half an idea of nerfs before the expansion was released...
Well, you can still try the deck without Sonya. Replace with any 3-drop.
Surely she adds consistency to the deck's main synergy, but you can craft her later, when you see you like the deck.
Ethereal Peddler. If they started printing more cards like this, Thief Rogue would become scary even in Wild.
Efficient generators and efficient synergies.
The problem so far is that most generators and most synergies have been value-oriented, without enough Tempo.
But interesting cards are slowly stacking up...