I have a sneaking suspicion that they're going to make thaurassian's ability a battle cry.
One turn of Thauss is enough to break Patron. They either need to nerf him out of usability (make it trigger at start of turn, or something) or nerf something else in the Patron deck. I would vote for the latter because I think Thauss enables some interesting decks (Malygos Warlock) and only breaking in Patron.
If you think Patron is the only deck Thauss breaks you're not trying hard enough. Nerf a vital part of Patron and you'll see a new bullshit combo deck pop up centered on Thaurissan within the month, I guarantee. It's just not a mechanic that can stay in the game if you don't want these sorts of decks to exist.
I'll be sad to see him go because he makes Malyvelen Priest workable, but bringing bad decks into competitiveness isn't worth having mediocre combo decks becoming meta-defining.
Indeed; Thaur is sickening in the oil rogue deck; with the proper hand on drop he enables burst of 30+; best one I have ever had happen was my hand was deadly poison (x2) Oil (x2) Prep and blade flurry ( I think; destroy the weapon and deal damage to all enemies brain just stopped working entirely.) and southsea deckhand.
Drop thaur get 1 turn of reduction; and the next turn is so dumb. Weapon (2 mana) -- Southsea deckhand (0)-- Deadly poison (x2 0 mana) Oil (3 mana) Oil (3 mana) attack with southsea (8 damage) attack with weapon (11) Blade flurry (1 mana- 11 damage) so 30 damage for 9 mana while having open board.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWftn94D1Sc
This explains some of the strange inconsistencies you've all probably seen. Randomly assigning a "dominant player" is just :rotate:
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
Face paladin is such feast or famine. First game this morning I absolutely demolished a hunter. It wasn't even close. I even fucked up, missed lethal and still won. Against a hunter! That's how far ahead I was.
Next game my opening hand is all 3- and 4-drop weapons and buffs and I have no ability to build board presence so I've basically lost before the turn 1.
Game after that I take a massive lead, but Counterspell completely screws me over. I probably could have won if I'd blown my Consecration instead, but frankly I wasn't expecting Counterspell. The guy's previous secret was a Duplicate, so I figured it was some kind of grinder mage.
It's fun though. I may try out Savjz's version from a few seasons back. It had wisps and hobgoblins.
Also, I might come off as a bit aggressive in that last post (which I apologize for), but I should note I don't actually mind patron that much. The frothing OTKs are very annoying but I generally don't see them actually go off that often. And I certainly like having Thaurissan in the game because he enables my dumb decks. I just don't think his continued existence is going to be healthy for the game in the long run.
The main problem is that he will never be less powerful than he is now, no matter what decks, tribes and abilities get introduced, unless the mana system is changed somehow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWftn94D1Sc
This explains some of the strange inconsistencies you've all probably seen. Randomly assigning a "dominant player" is just :rotate:
Yeah so that's basically the theory I had in my head.
Which was that the game doesn't give a fuck what was played in what order, it'll just do whatever the fuck it wants to.
God, Hearthstone is so jank sometimes. The video calls it a "bug", but really it's just faulty programming, isn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWftn94D1Sc
This explains some of the strange inconsistencies you've all probably seen. Randomly assigning a "dominant player" is just :rotate:
Yeah so that's basically the theory I had in my head.
Which was that the game doesn't give a fuck what was played in what order, it'll just do whatever the fuck it wants to.
God, Hearthstone is so jank sometimes. The video calls it a "bug", but really it's just faulty programming, isn't it?
It's clear that they did it deliberately, I think. Why though? I could see them not wanting players to have to think through the details of the order of resolution, and deciding instead to have effects go off in random order. But this? Now you have to figure out who the dominant player was assigned to be at the beginning of the game?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWftn94D1Sc
This explains some of the strange inconsistencies you've all probably seen. Randomly assigning a "dominant player" is just :rotate:
Yeah so that's basically the theory I had in my head.
Which was that the game doesn't give a fuck what was played in what order, it'll just do whatever the fuck it wants to.
God, Hearthstone is so jank sometimes. The video calls it a "bug", but really it's just faulty programming, isn't it?
It's clear that they did it deliberately, I think. Why though? I could see them not wanting players to have to think through the details of the order of resolution, and deciding instead to have effects go off in random order. But this? Now you have to figure out who the dominant player was assigned to be at the beginning of the game?
I don't think it is deliberate.
They have tried to make it clear what the rules of resolution are, going so far at one point to completely rework deathrattles ("first played, first triggered"), except we know now that's no longer the case.
So I don't think it's deliberate. I think it's a giant oversight involving flawed programming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWftn94D1Sc
This explains some of the strange inconsistencies you've all probably seen. Randomly assigning a "dominant player" is just :rotate:
Yeah so that's basically the theory I had in my head.
Which was that the game doesn't give a fuck what was played in what order, it'll just do whatever the fuck it wants to.
God, Hearthstone is so jank sometimes. The video calls it a "bug", but really it's just faulty programming, isn't it?
It's clear that they did it deliberately, I think. Why though? I could see them not wanting players to have to think through the details of the order of resolution, and deciding instead to have effects go off in random order. But this? Now you have to figure out who the dominant player was assigned to be at the beginning of the game?
I don't think it is deliberate.
They have tried to make it clear what the rules of resolution are, going so far at one point to completely rework deathrattles ("first played, first triggered"), except we know now that's no longer the case.
So I don't think it's deliberate. I think it's a giant oversight involving flawed programming.
They created two separate queues for events, and ordered them according to player ID. How does that happen accidentally?
It's no accident. The evidence for me is that the player ID used to always go to one person, but now it's randomly assigned. That's a deliberate change.
esports
Lilnoobs on
0
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
They created two separate queues for events, and ordered them according to player ID. How does that happen accidentally?
There are loads of reasons why it could be done for computational efficiency.
For example, let's say there are 5 minions on either side of a board, so 10 minions total. I play Starfall, which only affects enemy minions. What's quicker, running through each of the 10 minions, and performing an operation that checks who its owner is each time, then applying the damage? Or having a pre-constructed list of minions by owner that is then used for friendly/enemy minion references?
So when they got to coding the end of turn, they probably just said, "well, we want to run through all the minions on board's end of turn effects, and we already have two populated lists of minions arranged by owner, so that's what we'll use, one at a time, since it means we don't have to create a second, redundant, memory-eating queue structure for minions just for the purpose of end of turn effects."
It's not an accident that there's a player id 1 vs 2, but its an accident that it causes unpredictable game play like with Power Overwhelming + Shadow Madness.
0
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
I'm weak... I bought 15 packs with the express purpose of getting enough dust to build Handlock... and it worked! I even opened a Mountain Giant (and a Deathwing!) as well as enough dust to make the other three Giants. Then I played Handlock a bunch.
Made it to rank 8 which is my highest rank this season.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWftn94D1Sc
This explains some of the strange inconsistencies you've all probably seen. Randomly assigning a "dominant player" is just :rotate:
Yeah so that's basically the theory I had in my head.
Which was that the game doesn't give a fuck what was played in what order, it'll just do whatever the fuck it wants to.
God, Hearthstone is so jank sometimes. The video calls it a "bug", but really it's just faulty programming, isn't it?
It's clear that they did it deliberately, I think. Why though? I could see them not wanting players to have to think through the details of the order of resolution, and deciding instead to have effects go off in random order. But this? Now you have to figure out who the dominant player was assigned to be at the beginning of the game?
I don't think it is deliberate.
They have tried to make it clear what the rules of resolution are, going so far at one point to completely rework deathrattles ("first played, first triggered"), except we know now that's no longer the case.
So I don't think it's deliberate. I think it's a giant oversight involving flawed programming.
They created two separate queues for events, and ordered them according to player ID. How does that happen accidentally?
There's only one queue and it gets filled in a way that's not intended by the game designers (we assume) so it's a bug.
Like, obviously someone sat down and coded it like it is. But that's true for any bug in the history of software development (note: the first bugs that were literal bugs don't count because that was hardware). Essentially, if Blizz comes out and says it's unintended then it's a bug. Bugs don't have to be completely accidental, it's enough to have a breakdown in communication somewhere between designers and coders.
PoGo friend code: 7835 1672 4968
0
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
I'm weak... I bought 15 packs with the express purpose of getting enough dust to build Handlock... and it worked! I even opened a Mountain Giant (and a Deathwing!) as well as enough dust to make the other three Giants. Then I played Handlock a bunch.
Made it to rank 8 which is my highest rank this season.
Handlock is great. One of my favorite decks, and the core of the deck is flexible enough that you can insert some different cards to alter the play style a bit.
Did Priest suddenly just drop off the planet? I'm finding my priest deck isn't doing shit suddenly and looking at Hearthstoneplayer meta watch, there isn't a Priest deck in the top decks nor the decks to watch.
They created two separate queues for events, and ordered them according to player ID. How does that happen accidentally?
There are loads of reasons why it could be done for computational efficiency.
For example, let's say there are 5 minions on either side of a board, so 10 minions total. I play Starfall, which only affects enemy minions. What's quicker, running through each of the 10 minions, and performing an operation that checks who its owner is each time, then applying the damage? Or having a pre-constructed list of minions by owner that is then used for friendly/enemy minion references?
So when they got to coding the end of turn, they probably just said, "well, we want to run through all the minions on board's end of turn effects, and we already have two populated lists of minions arranged by owner, so that's what we'll use, one at a time, since it means we don't have to create a second, redundant, memory-eating queue structure for minions just for the purpose of end of turn effects."
This particular explanation doesn't jive with me, since events are triggered on both sides of the board and get queued. So, for example, after a Twisting Nether, the game has to loop through ALL minions on the board checking for their deathrattles anyways. In general, I think the robust software engineering practice would be to ALWAYS loop through all the minions on the board - for example, you might assume that with a Flamestrike, you only have to check the opponent's side, but there may be events triggered over there that cause further interactions on your side of the board. Similarly, end of turn events surely cause triggers on both sides - and searching both sides of the board is going to be REALLY negligible in runtime: double, yes, but still just 7 items at most.
Every natural inclination in me says to create one EventQueue in the GameEngine, and process them one at a time, but I guess they must have placed one EventQueue in each Player, and called them separately from GameEngine: GameEngine.process(Player1.EventQueue) and then GameEngine.process(Player2.EventQueue)*. It's probably a result of a code architecture centered around Players, rather than the GameEngine, where most of the processing code occurs per Player, and is just called by the GameEngine.
If this is the case, it's an interesting example of how a poor initial design choice results in problematic behaviour later on, since I don't see any reason to make the game code centered around Players rather than a GameEngine, except mis-applied OOP principles.
* More likely, for (1<=i<=2) GameEngine.process(Players[ i ].EventQueue) - which explains why the PlayerID is relevant.
They created two separate queues for events, and ordered them according to player ID. How does that happen accidentally?
There are loads of reasons why it could be done for computational efficiency.
For example, let's say there are 5 minions on either side of a board, so 10 minions total. I play Starfall, which only affects enemy minions. What's quicker, running through each of the 10 minions, and performing an operation that checks who its owner is each time, then applying the damage? Or having a pre-constructed list of minions by owner that is then used for friendly/enemy minion references?
So when they got to coding the end of turn, they probably just said, "well, we want to run through all the minions on board's end of turn effects, and we already have two populated lists of minions arranged by owner, so that's what we'll use, one at a time, since it means we don't have to create a second, redundant, memory-eating queue structure for minions just for the purpose of end of turn effects."
It's a turn-based game. If they are seriously sacrificing game rules to hyper-optimize some cheap operations that are completed in less than milliseconds and will never, ever impact the player experience, they should fire their dev team.
Did Priest suddenly just drop off the planet? I'm finding my priest deck isn't doing shit suddenly and looking at Hearthstoneplayer meta watch, there isn't a Priest deck in the top decks nor the decks to watch.
Oh, it wasn't sudden . . .
Most priest decks are good at outliving aggro decks. Unfortunately for priest players, the strong decks in the metagame right now are combo, midrange, and control decks. Facehunter is the only aggro deck still getting good results and therefore a decent amount of play with aggro zoolock decks having been replaced by midrange versions and aggro paladin no longer able to get wins through surprise value.
It still sees play at events and tournaments where a deck can be tailored to what someone expects (and priest has a lot of reactive, conditional cards) but not so much on ladder.
Did Priest suddenly just drop off the planet? I'm finding my priest deck isn't doing shit suddenly and looking at Hearthstoneplayer meta watch, there isn't a Priest deck in the top decks nor the decks to watch.
Priest is good against aggro and control, and some midrange, but it's extremely weak to any combo deck, and combo decks dominate the meta right now.
It's also very draw dependent and needs certain combos to really dominate, but it has very weak draw right now compared to other decks, so if you don't have what you need you just get outpaced and lose.
Just gave a friend my log-in info for his S6. He won a casual game with Oil Rogue, knowing little about the game. He's a big magic player, so it was pretty easy to adapt.
My packs were mostly just dust, but I did score a golden Epic (Patient Assassin) for an extra 400 dust. About 600 in total and currently I'm at 4,370. Bring on the next expansion!
Need a voice actor? Hire me at bengrayVO.com
Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051 Steam ID Twitch Page
Yeah, it sucks as I have two quest that want 5 Priest wins and it's looking like a struggle to get any right now.
Try the Brawl. It should be easier than ladder, at least!
Not really. 0-4 doing this...
Try again with someone observing you for help/tips.
Need a voice actor? Hire me at bengrayVO.com
Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051 Steam ID Twitch Page
+1
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
After playing around with my unconventional Hunter Deathrattle Control deck in casual, I feel like both Multi-shot and Explosive Shot have a place in today's meta.
They need to address the increased RNG elements they brought into this game with GvG. The variance is just killing me. The number of times a solid game turns into a complete shit show because of unstable portal, webspinner, imp-plosion, bane of doom, and so on is infuriating.
+1
fRAWRstThe Seas CallThe Mad AnswerRegistered Userregular
There is no longer a disagree button but I hella disagree
They need to address the increased RNG elements they brought into this game with GvG. The variance is just killing me. The number of times a solid game turns into a complete shit show because of unstable portal, webspinner, imp-plosion, bane of doom, and so on is infuriating.
I don't really mind Portal and Webspinner because, I mean, you don't get drastically more than you paid for. Like, you get a random card added to your deck, but you still have to pay the mana costs to actually play it, so while they can turn a game upside-down they don't do it more or less for free the way the others do. Imp-plosion and Boom bots are pretty bad because of the way the RNG is doubled, and while Bane of Doom does require some setting up, there's something pretty wrong with an effect that can give you anything from Blood Imp to Mal'Ganis. How do you give that a reasonable cost?
They need to address the increased RNG elements they brought into this game with GvG. The variance is just killing me. The number of times a solid game turns into a complete shit show because of unstable portal, webspinner, imp-plosion, bane of doom, and so on is infuriating.
Imp-plosion and Boom bots are pretty bad because of the way the RNG is doubled, and while Bane of Doom does require some setting up, there's something pretty wrong with an effect that can give you anything from Blood Imp to Mal'Ganis. How do you give that a reasonable cost?
Reword the text to:
Deal 2 damage to a character. If that kills it, summon a random non-Legendary minion.
Need a voice actor? Hire me at bengrayVO.com
Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051 Steam ID Twitch Page
They need to address the increased RNG elements they brought into this game with GvG. The variance is just killing me. The number of times a solid game turns into a complete shit show because of unstable portal, webspinner, imp-plosion, bane of doom, and so on is infuriating.
I don't really mind Portal and Webspinner because, I mean, you don't get drastically more than you paid for. Like, you get a random card added to your deck, but you still have to pay the mana costs to actually play it, so while they can turn a game upside-down they don't do it more or less for free the way the others do. Imp-plosion and Boom bots are pretty bad because of the way the RNG is doubled, and while Bane of Doom does require some setting up, there's something pretty wrong with an effect that can give you anything from Blood Imp to Mal'Ganis. How do you give that a reasonable cost?
I don't know...
A boulder-first ogre on turn 3 can suck.
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra
0
The Escape Goatincorrigible ruminantthey/themRegistered Userregular
They need to address the increased RNG elements they brought into this game with GvG. The variance is just killing me. The number of times a solid game turns into a complete shit show because of unstable portal, webspinner, imp-plosion, bane of doom, and so on is infuriating.
I don't really mind Portal and Webspinner because, I mean, you don't get drastically more than you paid for. Like, you get a random card added to your deck, but you still have to pay the mana costs to actually play it, so while they can turn a game upside-down they don't do it more or less for free the way the others do. Imp-plosion and Boom bots are pretty bad because of the way the RNG is doubled, and while Bane of Doom does require some setting up, there's something pretty wrong with an effect that can give you anything from Blood Imp to Mal'Ganis. How do you give that a reasonable cost?
You don't still have to pay the mana cost is a thing. Turn 5 Tirion is ludicrous because unless you have Poly or Hex on hand you basically just immediately lose. There is no way you can be prepared to deal with something like that that early.
Posts
Drop thaur get 1 turn of reduction; and the next turn is so dumb. Weapon (2 mana) -- Southsea deckhand (0)-- Deadly poison (x2 0 mana) Oil (3 mana) Oil (3 mana) attack with southsea (8 damage) attack with weapon (11) Blade flurry (1 mana- 11 damage) so 30 damage for 9 mana while having open board.
This explains some of the strange inconsistencies you've all probably seen. Randomly assigning a "dominant player" is just :rotate:
Grrr...
Next game my opening hand is all 3- and 4-drop weapons and buffs and I have no ability to build board presence so I've basically lost before the turn 1.
Game after that I take a massive lead, but Counterspell completely screws me over. I probably could have won if I'd blown my Consecration instead, but frankly I wasn't expecting Counterspell. The guy's previous secret was a Duplicate, so I figured it was some kind of grinder mage.
It's fun though. I may try out Savjz's version from a few seasons back. It had wisps and hobgoblins.
PSN: Threeve703
Not at all. Nerfing him would free up a removal which is huge.
Steam: adamjnet
The main problem is that he will never be less powerful than he is now, no matter what decks, tribes and abilities get introduced, unless the mana system is changed somehow.
Steam: adamjnet
Yeah so that's basically the theory I had in my head.
Which was that the game doesn't give a fuck what was played in what order, it'll just do whatever the fuck it wants to.
God, Hearthstone is so jank sometimes. The video calls it a "bug", but really it's just faulty programming, isn't it?
Battle.net Tag: Dibby#1582
It's clear that they did it deliberately, I think. Why though? I could see them not wanting players to have to think through the details of the order of resolution, and deciding instead to have effects go off in random order. But this? Now you have to figure out who the dominant player was assigned to be at the beginning of the game?
I don't think it is deliberate.
They have tried to make it clear what the rules of resolution are, going so far at one point to completely rework deathrattles ("first played, first triggered"), except we know now that's no longer the case.
So I don't think it's deliberate. I think it's a giant oversight involving flawed programming.
Battle.net Tag: Dibby#1582
They created two separate queues for events, and ordered them according to player ID. How does that happen accidentally?
esports
For example, let's say there are 5 minions on either side of a board, so 10 minions total. I play Starfall, which only affects enemy minions. What's quicker, running through each of the 10 minions, and performing an operation that checks who its owner is each time, then applying the damage? Or having a pre-constructed list of minions by owner that is then used for friendly/enemy minion references?
So when they got to coding the end of turn, they probably just said, "well, we want to run through all the minions on board's end of turn effects, and we already have two populated lists of minions arranged by owner, so that's what we'll use, one at a time, since it means we don't have to create a second, redundant, memory-eating queue structure for minions just for the purpose of end of turn effects."
Made it to rank 8 which is my highest rank this season.
There's only one queue and it gets filled in a way that's not intended by the game designers (we assume) so it's a bug.
Like, obviously someone sat down and coded it like it is. But that's true for any bug in the history of software development (note: the first bugs that were literal bugs don't count because that was hardware). Essentially, if Blizz comes out and says it's unintended then it's a bug. Bugs don't have to be completely accidental, it's enough to have a breakdown in communication somewhere between designers and coders.
Handlock is great. One of my favorite decks, and the core of the deck is flexible enough that you can insert some different cards to alter the play style a bit.
PSN: Threeve703
This particular explanation doesn't jive with me, since events are triggered on both sides of the board and get queued. So, for example, after a Twisting Nether, the game has to loop through ALL minions on the board checking for their deathrattles anyways. In general, I think the robust software engineering practice would be to ALWAYS loop through all the minions on the board - for example, you might assume that with a Flamestrike, you only have to check the opponent's side, but there may be events triggered over there that cause further interactions on your side of the board. Similarly, end of turn events surely cause triggers on both sides - and searching both sides of the board is going to be REALLY negligible in runtime: double, yes, but still just 7 items at most.
Every natural inclination in me says to create one EventQueue in the GameEngine, and process them one at a time, but I guess they must have placed one EventQueue in each Player, and called them separately from GameEngine: GameEngine.process(Player1.EventQueue) and then GameEngine.process(Player2.EventQueue)*. It's probably a result of a code architecture centered around Players, rather than the GameEngine, where most of the processing code occurs per Player, and is just called by the GameEngine.
If this is the case, it's an interesting example of how a poor initial design choice results in problematic behaviour later on, since I don't see any reason to make the game code centered around Players rather than a GameEngine, except mis-applied OOP principles.
* More likely, for (1<=i<=2) GameEngine.process(Players[ i ].EventQueue) - which explains why the PlayerID is relevant.
It's a turn-based game. If they are seriously sacrificing game rules to hyper-optimize some cheap operations that are completed in less than milliseconds and will never, ever impact the player experience, they should fire their dev team.
Things are OK.
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra
Oh, it wasn't sudden . . .
Most priest decks are good at outliving aggro decks. Unfortunately for priest players, the strong decks in the metagame right now are combo, midrange, and control decks. Facehunter is the only aggro deck still getting good results and therefore a decent amount of play with aggro zoolock decks having been replaced by midrange versions and aggro paladin no longer able to get wins through surprise value.
It still sees play at events and tournaments where a deck can be tailored to what someone expects (and priest has a lot of reactive, conditional cards) but not so much on ladder.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
Priest is good against aggro and control, and some midrange, but it's extremely weak to any combo deck, and combo decks dominate the meta right now.
It's also very draw dependent and needs certain combos to really dominate, but it has very weak draw right now compared to other decks, so if you don't have what you need you just get outpaced and lose.
Try the Brawl. It should be easier than ladder, at least!
Ooze is seriously one of the most underrated cards at the moment, I feel. Hardly anyone runs it!
I mean, obviously Harrison is great if you have him, but if not, run an Ooze. It will do a lot of work for you. Weapon classes are very prevalent.
Battle.net Tag: Dibby#1582
My packs were mostly just dust, but I did score a golden Epic (Patient Assassin) for an extra 400 dust. About 600 in total and currently I'm at 4,370. Bring on the next expansion!
Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051
Steam ID
Twitch Page
Not really. 0-4 doing this...
Try again with someone observing you for help/tips.
Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051
Steam ID
Twitch Page
thoughts?
Xbox Live / Steam
I don't really mind Portal and Webspinner because, I mean, you don't get drastically more than you paid for. Like, you get a random card added to your deck, but you still have to pay the mana costs to actually play it, so while they can turn a game upside-down they don't do it more or less for free the way the others do. Imp-plosion and Boom bots are pretty bad because of the way the RNG is doubled, and while Bane of Doom does require some setting up, there's something pretty wrong with an effect that can give you anything from Blood Imp to Mal'Ganis. How do you give that a reasonable cost?
Reword the text to:
Deal 2 damage to a character. If that kills it, summon a random non-Legendary minion.
Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051
Steam ID
Twitch Page
I don't know...
A boulder-first ogre on turn 3 can suck.
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra
You don't still have to pay the mana cost is a thing. Turn 5 Tirion is ludicrous because unless you have Poly or Hex on hand you basically just immediately lose. There is no way you can be prepared to deal with something like that that early.
So you're saying all orcs look alike to you, huh? I don't understand how we can have this sort of racism in the modern day.
Yeah dude, I mean cmon.
One has brown skin, the other has green skin! ezpz
Also one likes weapons and armor a whole lot and the other is super into fel magic and demons.
Battle.net Tag: Dibby#1582