I like this idea, but I like something like a 6 mana legendary that is 4/6 that has a battlecry of put a random secret on your board.

a 4/6 6 mana put a secret into play would never see play. bc the average secret is 2 mana roughly, so it's basically a 4 mana 4/6 (which is good but not great) with a random element attached (variance)

i do like the idea of introducing random secrets since it adds to gameplay and whatnot and it fits with the whole shredder stuff, but not from a legendary

i think others have mentioned this, but what about just a mad scientist change from secret from your deck to -> random secret, and nerf to a 1/2. would make it basically a 0 mana 1/2 (slightly better than wisp) with positive or negative variance. also doesn't thin a deck, which is a big upside to the scientist no one seems to mention

The "random secret" would be kind of cool. We aren't talking about the times that there aren't any secrets left in your deck and Mad Scientist becomes underbudgeted for 2 mana. For example, you have 2 explosive traps with 1 in play and the other in your hand. That does happen, so it's not like Mad Scientist is always way overbudget but I don't think those situations make up for all the times he gets mad value on turn 1 or 2.

pretty sure the new mode is a 4 player brawl
like a 4 player husng.

This would be pretty cool,I used to love having multiplayer free for all mtg games

How about a rush mode. Play turn one vs one opponent, turn two vs another and turn 3 vs a 3rd. Your board is conserved from one opponent to the next. That sounds pretty brawly.

If it is the 4 player thing it would be nice if there were buy ins and prizes.

Hearthstone Deck Tracker.

https://github.com/Epix37/Hearthstone-Deck-Tracker

I really wish Shaman involved less RNG

The shaman class needs a complete overhaul. The only remotely viable decks are the donktastic fel reaver mech decks. Almost every card added to the class from gvg on has been completely stupid or weak.

It's a shame because a really love shamans core set of cards.

agree.

in another note, rogue class has completely let me down. much like poker, this feels liek running at the bottom 5% or worse - havent drawn sprint in more than 5 games out of my last 100 or so. legit record setting.

Re: mad scientist -

It really shouldn't exist b/c it's a neutral that's cant really ever be balanced because of the difference in cost of secrets between the classes. Giving each individual secret class their own version of the minion seems better.

If the new thing is like a 4 player husng then F that. I'll just win back to back games on ladder and get the same thing from that.

Would be cool if there was a program that could track your mulligans and then track when you get X card and over the long term show win rates relative to that data.

Also you going to the WSOP this year? Same question to IHA? Obv dubby is alreay out there.

A good point of illustration with regard to Mad Scientist is that there isn't a single Paladin deck that incorporates the card (that is actually even slightly successful) vs it's a staple of EVERY Mage/Hunter deck.

Granted, both Mages and Hunters have other positive synergy with running secrets (like Eaglehorn Bow or Flamewaker) but the enormity of 1 mana vs 2 vs 3 is shown.

I got to rank five last month almost exclusively with shaman. Not sure of my win rate since I mostly play on my phone, but it's at least borderline competitive.

I used a hybrid of aggro mech and midrange, basically taking the mech shell and replacing the burst damage with mid-game threats like fireguards, azure drakes, and boom/al akir.

That's not to say I think it's a great class or anything, but just that it's not completely unplayable.

Depends on your definition of unplayable. Sure, it doesn't have a 0% winrate. But it's by far the weakest class and has been for a while, no matter how the meta changes.

Or maybe priest is worse atm. i don't really know.

You don't realize how dependent oil rogue is on sprint until you go on an extended streak of not drawing it. I feel your pain Bobbo.

I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way but getting something to rank 5 is almost irrelevant :x

I've been playing midrange Shaman on EU and every matchup feels like I'm either slightly underdog or at a substantial disadvantage. That's the problem with the deck - you don't have any unfair matchups aside from ~control warrior, and even then it's not landslide. (Although in fairness it is pretty good)

Very fair points from you and Wolfram. I mentioned the rank 5 because I took it to that point and I'm not that great, so I would imagine with a competent player and a more refined list, it could reach legend.

That said, I guess I would only really place shaman as 7th best, so this isn't really much of an argument.

One thing I did learn is that fireguard is less bad when you're using it to hit face. When you use it to trade as more controllish midrange shaman decks try to do, you don't gain value from its ability.

The general issue with Shaman is that it lacks consistent card draw AND aoe. So if you fall behind in cards you're generally ****ed and if you fall behind on the board you're also ****ed. They have zero board wipes like every other class - lightning storm is inconsistent, and if you use a lot of cheap removal like earth shocks and bolts you end up having no threats to respond.

Also, the hero power isn't good. In most situations one or MAYBE two work, but often it's like healing totem on an open board or a 1/1 vs a 1 damage class or a spell power totem when you have zero spells in hand.

If I'm really far ahead I like stealing healing totems with Cabal Shadow Priest just to abuse the card draw when coupled with Cleric. It's BM without even using emotes.

Yes, Shaman sucks and it always has.

Yes, Mad Scientist needs to be 3 mana or a 1/1 2 mana.

NOW,

Let's get to the task at hand and speculate more on the new feature. A 16 man SNG seems realistic to me. A 64 man SNG would be even more fun imo but seems less likely.

I like where wombat's head is at, and I can't think of any other reason then it being a tournament mode.

Some say it may look a lot like CONSTRUCTED CONQUEST ARENA...either you hit 12 wins (4 series won) or you're out after your first Best of 5...sounds a little convoluted, but cool as well.

WOMBAT, would the 16 man be single elimination? I can't imagine organizing 16 players to be a Best of 5 at one time...

man if tournaments cost gold and winner take all or something, with the whole player pool being randomized...

Dats a lot of frakkin easy gold.


beat: like in warcraft 3 auto tournaments, the downside is the wait time between games