• 0

    posted a message on Thoughts on Dark Pact for 1 Mana?

     

    Quote from Northwind77 >>

     

     
     You don't seem to grasp the conversation because of your willful ignorance.

    We are talking about DARK PACT being essential to an early combo that gives FREE minions that would otherwise have a huge drawback, for no drawback at all + gaining 8 life.

    You keep crying that Dark Pact isn't the problem on its own. No sh#t. Either was Conceal or Ice Lance, look what happened to them because THEY CREATED A COMBO THAT WAS TOO MUCH FOR THE OPPONENT.

    Stop posting in threads when you cant grasp the conversation. Go play cubelock and fall asleep.
    Why are you so hostile? It's not me being dense here. You can literally replace Dark Pact with any other 1-mana card that destroys/damages your Lackey for the same benefit of "putting up a big taunt". The combo DOES NOT REQUIRE dark pact. It's lackey and lackey alone that does that. Dark Pact might work better than the other, but that doesn't change the fact that it plays no role in enabling the combo to begin with. Hell even if you just kill Lackey by trading you get the same benefit. 
    Also, Ice Lance itself was very much an issue and you bringing that up shows your lack of understanding of what makes a combo a combo.
    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Thoughts on Dark Pact for 1 Mana?

     

    Quote from Fierytear >>

     

     
     The problem is healing because it puts you out of reach from burn while simultaneously putting up a taunt. You can't judge the card in a vacuum, but the combo it creates is particularly annoying because of the health. Put up a big taunt? Sure, put up a big taunt and half heal your hero not really
     Again, "putting up a big taunt" IS NOT PART OF Dark Pact, but Lackey, which - again - is the key (problem) card here.
    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Thoughts on Dark Pact for 1 Mana?

     

    Quote from Northwind77 >>

     

     
    Possessed Lackey  does not need a nerf. It's a risky 2/2 body for 5 mana, that can be silenced and produce 0 value.

    Skull of the Man'ari  does not need a nerf. It's 5 mana, can't attack, and can be destroyed the very next turn it's played.

    Dark Pact is the ONLY card in the combo that has high-reward-no-investment/drawback. There lies our problem.
    "No investment"? You missed the part where it requires you to DESTROY YOUR MINION. That's a drawback no matter how you try to frame it. That it has particular combo potential with a VERY SPECIFIC card should tell you which of those two pose an issue. Lackey itself creates the issue of getting the actual combo pieces out, NOT pact.
    Skull is fine, since it has easy counterplay, is only one copy and is very slow.
    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 4

    posted a message on Thoughts on Dark Pact for 1 Mana?

    There is nothing wrong with Dark Pact. In fact, it's actually underbudgeted. You gain a measly 1 mana advantage of a dedicated "Restore 8 health to your hero", which is worth less than 2 mana, for killing your own minion.

    Possessed Lackey is the only issue whatsoever and I'm amazed how everyone keeps saying something else, like Dark Pact, Doomguard, Voidlord or Cube. It's just crystal clear.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Faceless / Ixlid, Fungal Lord + Charged Devilsaur

     

     

    Gamalon facelessed the ixlid copy, not the original.
     
    No. See above. There is no ixl on the field.
     
    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Faceless / Ixlid, Fungal Lord + Charged Devilsaur

     

     

     This.  If you play both Charged Devilsaur and Faceless on the same turn, neither can attack face.  If you play CD then on the following turn Faceless, both can attack face that turn. 
    This used to be the interaction as I tried it (unsuccessfully) back when Aviana Kun was a thing.  If it's no longer the case perhaps they tweaked Charge somehow while developing Rush.
    Ixlid copy will always be able to attack face, regardless of what turn it is, because it's not an exact copy like Faceless.
     Except that the Faceless copy can attack face as well, as tested by Gamalon.
    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Faceless / Ixlid, Fungal Lord + Charged Devilsaur

     

     

    Quote from GMAlon >>

     

    That's that point, if it works like you said he shouldn't be able to attack, but he does (tested it against the innkeeper - he is right i could attack the enemy hero if the copy)
     Thanks for testing it. If anyone is wondering how he was able to play all that, he used Jungle Giants and drew into them with UI.
    Quote from FiendishKodex >>

    So, I typed up a huge explanation for what I thought was going on, as I was running games in the practice range to test my theory. Of course, I was wrong, so there goes all that time.

    Long story short, Charged Devilsaur creates a delayed-aura affect that isn't linked to the devilsaur until after he comes into play.

    Looking at The Mistcaller, his card used to work differently on a functional level. His battlecry actually did 2 things. 1: Give all minions in your hand +1/+1. Give your hand "whenever you draw a minion, give it +1/+1". This allowed you to play mistcaller several times, and then Elise (The old one) and your golden monkey generated legendaries would have the buff from Mistcaller. (This was my favorite deck for a long time, and I am very sad to see Blizzard fix their code.) This is because, for a long time, Hearthstone code didn't allow minions in the deck to receive buffs. The game wasn't able to recognize the deck as being a legal area for buffs to be placed. When Knights of the Frozen Throne came out, they cleaned up the client and recoded The Mistcaller to actually give individual cards in deck the buff. This was a good change, even if it ruined my favorite deck.

    It appears that the Hearthstone client has no way of removing a single buff from a minion without silencing all the buffs from it. Because of this, Charged Devilsaur's "can't attack heroes" buff is coded and applied differently. It's a buff, yes, but it's put on another "layer" that auto-wipes at end of turn. Problem is, this "layer" doesn't exists anywhere except on the battlefield, so it has to delay its resolution until the creature is in play. So, when Ixilid copies a Charged Devilsaur, he copies the minion between when the battlecry triggers and when it resolves. A corner case, that makes people scratch their heads, to be sure.

    Simply put, Hearthstone has complicated coding, mainly because they have inconsistencies in their rule book (heck, they don't really have a rule book). Hearthstone was designed by a much smaller team then they currently have on board, and because of that, it has problems in it's code. Rewritting the entire code to run smoother is a possibility, but it probably requires more time and energy then releasing an expansion. So Blizzard has decided to replace the bad parts when they rear their ugly heads, because it's too resource intensive to rewrite the entire game from the ground up.

    tl;dr, Devilsaur works like this because of complicated coding involving it's own special layer that only Devilsaur has. It shouldn't work like this, but unless Blizzard wants to spend 6 months rewriting the entire game, it's just something we're going to have to live with.

    Thanks for the insight. HS really is messy and inconsistent. I thought they took the chance when they fixed the whole field/hand/deck order of events a year or so ago.
    Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

     

     Are you sure the Devilsaur that was copied was played and activated the battlecry. I would like to see a screenshot of that, I don't own the card, but that is how the interaction works.
    If you play Devilsaur with Ixlid on board, the new Devilsaur spawned from Ixlid can attack because it is a brand new version that didn't battlecry.
    If you play Devilsaur from hand and activate it's Battlecry and then copy it with Faceless Manipulator, the new Devilsaur from Faceless cannot attack, if it attacks, it is bugged.
    If you summon Devilsaur from some other method and copy it with Faceless, it will be able to attack.
     
    Why should Ixlid's copy be able to attack tho? It reads "after you summon", so it should copy it with its attack restriction in place. It doesn't make sense that such a battlecry gets excluded. This whole thing doesn't seem intentional - like I said it's an oversight.
    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Faceless / Ixlid, Fungal Lord + Charged Devilsaur
    Quote from YokohammaD >>

    Comon dude, wtf are you talking about??? It means if I play Cubelock and faceless my doom guard, than I must discard 2 cards??? Don't talk shit, there is nothing wrong with these interactions. 

     Except that's not even remotely what's the issue here. Also, lovely choice of words. Always a pleasure to see community interaction. 
    Quote from Xophy >>

    What he means (I guess) is that the charged devilsaur played from hand has some attribute "cannot attack face this turn" which any copy created by faceless or other cards should also have. However, such an attribute is never copied; otherwise, if you would copy a minion which was played on a previous turn with faceless, the new copy should be able to attack on the same turn since the attribute "can attack" would have been copied. Thus, a copied charged devilaur being able to attack face is behaving as intended.

     Exactly. It seems it's not treated as "effect", but rather a "flag" that doesn't get copied - which seems like an oversight. I mean if you use Potion of Madness and then use faceless, you can attack as well, can't you, despite that it should be treated as a flag and not an effect? It's inconsistent. I assume in PoM's case it simply gets the "charge" effect, while it shouldn't be treated as such.
    The consistent solution would be to have "Can't attack heroes" be an effect instead of a flag - which coincidently they introduced as Rush mechanism to some degree, so it shouldn't be much of an issue forward. Still, I'd to see that they fix it.
    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Faceless / Ixlid, Fungal Lord + Charged Devilsaur
    Quote from eliasfajardo >>

      Sadly for you, it's not how the game works.

    It does, except in Devilsaur's case, which means it's very much a bug. It seems they have an issue with "Can't attack heroes"-effect, in that it's probably a flag instead of an coded effect in the game, which doesn't get copied.
    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 4

    posted a message on Faceless / Ixlid, Fungal Lord + Charged Devilsaur

     

    Quote from eliasfajardo >>

     

     Yes, but Ixlid summons a copy of the card, thus, battlecry does not affect it because it wasn't played. There's a big difference betwen play and summon.

    In the case of Faceless, faceless has the battlecry and it triggers after it enters the field, so Devilsaur's battlecry doesn't apply either.
    You don't understand. Faceless doesn't need to "trigger" Devilsaur's battlecry - THE DEVILSAUR ALREADY HAS THAT EFFECT attached to it. If you copy a minion that reads "Battlecry: Gain charge this turn", you'd get that as well if you copy it, you don't need to trigger it again.
    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Faceless / Ixlid, Fungal Lord + Charged Devilsaur
    Quote from eliasfajardo >>

    Because they have charge?

     The originally played Devilsaur CAN'T ATTACK HEROES due to his battlecry. That effect should be copied as well, since Faceless and co produce an EXACT copy.
     
    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Faceless / Ixlid, Fungal Lord + Charged Devilsaur

    Since when can a normally played Charged Devilsaur, that gets copied by Faceless Manipulator or Ixlid, Fungal Lord attack face? That seems like a bug or oversight, since it's always an EXACT copy, including the limitation that it can't attack face this turn. Wtf is going on, I'm almost sure it didn't work in the past.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Shudderwock is broken af (OTK?)

    Watch him get the Yogg treatment.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Weekly Card Design Competition 7.15 - Discussion Topic

     

    Quote from nurgling13 >>

     

     Is the Beast Buddy just a Vanilla 2/4 Beast? I think it would make more sense if it was the other way around (i.e., the Beast Buddy summons the Drake Buddy) based on the art. Then it would be like the Dragon is coming to the aid of the cat. The way you have it right now might work better mechanically, though.
     
    It really works either way and i agree that the art makes a little more sense the other way, but it needs to be a Dragon for this week's restriction and I feel this "Dragon minion in Hunter that summons a beast" feels unique and more interesting. And yeah, the idea is that the other comes when his friend is attacked.
    As for Energy Caster, I think the effect of "attacking your friendly minion" is unnecessary here. It doesn't add any flavor or makes sense mechanical wise, but maybe that can be improved by using a different art / name. You should also rewrite it to "You can attack a friendly Dragon to give it +2/+2 instead." 
    Posted in: Fan Creations
  • 0

    posted a message on Weekly Card Design Competition 7.15 - Discussion Topic

    Posted in: Fan Creations
  • To post a comment, please login or register a new account.