What's your take? Should the doubled Boompistol Bully have made that Zephrys cost 10 mana? Why or why not?

@argenti1801

4 жыл бұрын

Hysteria covered this in a recent video. Basically Galakrond fix the card's cost at (0) but other card like wondrous wand for example REDUCE the cost to (0). It's a weird interaction for sure

@Pyrovok

4 жыл бұрын

I think that it should have made it cost 10 mana but I understand why it only cost zero. Galakrond does not reduce the cost of cards to zero, it sets the cost to zero for the rest of the game. I guess this is similar (not so similar) to how Crystal Core set minions to 4/4's for the rest of the game. Interesting interaction!

@fredv7349

4 жыл бұрын

Usually happens with every interaction when it costs 0.

@nickolascurtiss9728

4 жыл бұрын

I think it shouldnt thats pretty stupid

@somerandomgamer8504

4 жыл бұрын

Galakrond's Rogue draw effect is basically an aura on the cards; they cost (0). Stuff like Wand reduces the cost down to (0) temporarily.

I think I can vouch for everyone when I say: We enjoy it when you discuss how you think cards (should) interact with each other. It's a learning experience for everyone, and it also allows us to know the reasoning behind your opinion on certain interactions. We also get to give our input into the situation as well. I personally think it's fine to interact with your chat in a video, especially if interacting with them is beneficial to all parties involved. Keep up the good work, and don't worry to much about "ruining videos" for us, as we generally come for your personality first, and the game play second.

@jari948

4 жыл бұрын

Ur so in love with him

Regis- *plays doubled up Boompistol* Opponent- Aaagh Call an ambulance *Plays 0 mana Zephrys* _but not for me_

@IainDoherty51

4 жыл бұрын

Notice the missed Zephrys lethal there? Regis was on 14 (1+13 armour), facing 3 damage on board and a 1/1 weapon... where was the pyroblast! The opponent still had 10 mana!

@spamhr782

4 жыл бұрын

@@IainDoherty51 maybe it's because Regis could've healed until the next turn

@IainDoherty51

4 жыл бұрын

@@spamhr782 but he would have been dead? Zephyrs Pyro = 10 damage Snip-Snap = 2 Damage Mini-Bot = 1 Damage Weapon = 1 Damage Total of 14 damage that matches Regis's Health total. For some reason they went for flamestrike instead (Or Zephrys didn't offer the Pyro) and didn't use the weapon on their turn.

@spamhr782

4 жыл бұрын

@@IainDoherty51 wait does zephrys pyro cost less than 10 mana?

@IainDoherty51

4 жыл бұрын

@@spamhr782 No, but Zephrys itself cost zero in this case, so he had 14 damage to hand when you take that into account. it's the whole thing that set Regis off because the bully got overwritten by an existing effect.

So think about thaurissan against loatheb. Thaurissan actually saves how many times it discounted, so you can have negative costs. For example, frostbolt discounted 4 times will cost 3 when loatheb is played. Thaurissan should theoretically work the same way as galakrond, meaning when the cost is set to 0, it can still be increased. Regis is definitely right, the way that interacted is super wack.

@desmondtop9323

4 жыл бұрын

@@Jaxsin7 Assuming you mean thaurissan right? And yeah that is a good point, although I still stand by my example

Btw shouldn't this discounted Zephrys give this Rogue Pyroblast for exact lethal? Am I missing something?

@damienfernando1553

4 жыл бұрын

He probably didn't set it up correctly or the armour had something to do with it. Nice catch.

@HeartFlamming

4 жыл бұрын

Honestly I think that was a BM just to extend the game

@monkagiga2271

4 жыл бұрын

@@damienfernando1553 Exactly, I would go face with everything then play Zephrys get lethal and make Regis even more mad lol

@MrKingONerds

4 жыл бұрын

Glad I'm not the only one that thought of this it bugged me for the entire rest of the video.

@iBasheveryone

4 жыл бұрын

It would have been off one...

0+10=0 Math!!!

Btw that guy missed lethal with Zephyrs, had 4 dmg and you were at 14, 0 mana Zephyrs should have given him Pyro

@kylesojak6267

4 жыл бұрын

Manu Ayala he needed to attack first

Freshly made spaghetti code

@MrShukaku1991

4 жыл бұрын

Its not fresh. There are many older cards with the same effect. For example Scorch. It costs 1 if you played an elemental last turn, even if you discount it to what should be zero the turn you want to play it. Like getting one of Kalegos for example.

Haha!! Ive been playing this deck too! And its nutty as hell! Loving it actually! Highlander Quest Galakrond Shaman!! Woo!! Imma make a Highlander Quest Galakrond Thief rogue too! Doubling Shudderwok, with the coin from that new adventure card after you’ve played Dragonqueen Alexstrasza, and siamat, etc.. is just game busting! Love those kinds of turns! I see your playing more of a control variant, whereas im playing a Galakrond version.. which can tempo fools out early as well.. i may give this version a try tho! Schaweet!

Basic maths : 0 + 10 = 0 Well done blizzard, great exemple for the kids ;)

@Laireso

4 жыл бұрын

The thing is it isn't reduced to 0, it's cost IS 0. So you can't add cost to it with any card in existence. -Which makes me hate Rogues even more.-

@rydymsdeim4486

4 жыл бұрын

On the other hand, 2 * 0 = (2 + 10) * 0 = 0

@Crystan

4 жыл бұрын

@@Laireso Correction it WAS zero. Setting a card's initial cost doesn't mean it should carry forward indefinitely. If I play Luna's Pocket Galaxy and get my cards discounted to 1, they're still impacted by cards which increase or decrease that cost. Rogue Galakrond doesn't say anything about keeping their costs at zero forever. It's probably working as intended, but the wording needs a revision imo.

if you play millhouse and then loatheb all enemy spells cost 5 that turn so this should work this way

@snidramon

4 жыл бұрын

@@Jaxsin7 Loatheb then millhouse makes spells coat zero. Millhouse then Loatheb makes them cost 5. It should work the same way in this case. Order should matter.

Why cant I find this card? Is it only adventure reward?

Considering galakronds cost reduction doesnt stay if u bounce the 0 cost card, id say its supposed to get the cost increase since it technically did not set the cards cost, unless its a new interaction where it only sets the cost until played which i dont think has been seen before

My question is why didn't the Rogue pick pyro for lethal?

"Bully is broken." "He can't afford to play 15 mana Leeroy" > Proceed to lose the game

Probably the rogue galakrond is coded as "reduce the cost by 10000" instead of seting the cost to 0, that way it wouldn't have weird interactions with cards that change costs like mountain giant and stuff like that. In this case the +10 to the card cost doesn't affect the card because the effective cost would still be in the negative

23:10 With double betrayal couldn't he use it on the murozond to kill the poisonous and the 1/1 and then hit the other poisonous to hit both tess and muro?

@aaronsilva329

4 жыл бұрын

Firstname Lastname yeah, he missed that.

@MrLipiko

4 жыл бұрын

Or even just use betrayal twice on the middle poisonous, it says "deals its damage" not "attacks", so it doesn't die to it.

@aaronsilva329

4 жыл бұрын

Simon Harte yeah, people just don’t use betrayal enough to remember how it works lol

@BeesKneesMan

4 жыл бұрын

yeah that's better than what I was thinking too which is shadow madness a 2/3 then betrayal and send in your 2/3 poison. would've been left with a 1/1

@SameInTheEndDude

4 жыл бұрын

@@BeesKneesMan Just like he was with brawl. Calculated!

The first rogue match was amazing....playing against rogue in the high ranks must be absolutely sick

Regis, toast tried to argue chat last year with an interaction that worked wrong but chat always thinks theyre right. the second effect of boom pistol based on the text should take president over the 0 since it was played second. galakrond would have to say draw (x) cards they always cost 0

shadow madness + betrayal could have been the play on that zeph turn vs. rogue. Madness on a 2/3 poison, betrayal on the enemy 2/3 poison to kill tess + murozond, trade 2/3s into each other. opponent is left with a draconic lackey

Galakrond doesn't reduce the cost of Zephrys by 2, or 12, it just says "cost 0". Is there a case of handbuffs taking order of application into account?

23:10 why not shadow madness a 2/3, betrayal the other 2/3, then trade the 2/3s?

The quality of blizz games is diminishing. Now we have somehow different effect from galakrond than other cards. No consistency

Cards drawn by this Galakrond gain an enchantment that says "this card costs 0". So do cards generated by Dragonqueen Alextraza and any spells in hand if you have Kalegos on the board and haven't played any spells yet this turn. As a result, most other cost-manipulation effects will fail on them because they have a buff that says they cost exactly 0. It should be noted that all other cost-reduction effects give buffs that say "cost reduced to 0", "cost reduced to 1" or "cost reduced by x", and thus can be further interacted with by other cost manipulation effects. Read the exact wording of the enchantments themself before getting salty. (Incidentally, the Wand of Wishing's cost reduction is applied before the aura from Boompistol Bully even if it is played after it because effects that set the cost or stats of somthing ignore auras when they do so, and so even if the opponent had a Wand of Wishing to play there, anything with a Battlecry that was drawn by it would still have cost 10).

How do u get boom pistol bully

I think that interaction happens because the text that specifies that the cards cost 0 isn't necessarily included in the battlecry. I believe the cards are drawn, then just being Rogue Galakrond makes them cost 0. The interaction is definitely confusing and kinda dumb. I believe the mechanic of making them cost 0 should be included in the battlecry to allow counterplay with a card like Boompistol

I like Regis' overlaying talk through the game. He seems quite analytical.

Been playing a homebrew version of this deck since DoD's release, and I'm glad that it's finally getting the attention it deserves! It's so much dumb fun!

@matthewacuna6336

4 жыл бұрын

@@RazoRaptor93 Highlander Quest Shaman. Not normal Quest Shaman.

can you please make the deck full of disruptor again in this meta? bully, silence taunt, mc tech, weapon steal or destruction, i dont know which class is the best though.. shaman can do more with shudderwock, but warlock has more disruptor.

blizz recently changed the interaction to work so effects similar to galakrond's discount are permanent. they did this when they last adjusted old quest rogue. it is intentional, not a bug.

@Mutavr

4 жыл бұрын

Any place to read details on that?

@adithyac1001

4 жыл бұрын

@@Mutavr I'm not actually sure. It was in the patch notes for when they changed the polymorph interaction with crystal caverns. It would turn the sheep into a 4/4. This was changed so that the sheep would be a 1/1. Basically, the condition of the sheep being a 1/1 can't be overridden because that's what it says on the card. Likewise, "they cost (0)" can't be overridden. I believe this is the interaction that they changed.

That Galakrond Zephyrs interaction with Bully sort of reminds me of the interaction with Goru and Treants. A dude played pyro + equality on my board of 3/3 Treants and they all lived with 1 hp because of Goru's +1/+1 buff on all Treants. You would think that because Equality is an interaction happening after Goru that it would override the buff he gives. Nope.

@fluffy7358

4 жыл бұрын

This is not the same. Goru applies a +1/+1 to base stats AS LONG AS HE'S ON THE BOARD. It's continuous. Which means it is always updating. when equality reduced the stats of the treants to 1/1, the goru buff got reapplied immediately afterward. Unlike that, Galakrond's discount is a battlecry. It is a one-time thing. anything that happens afterward should be stacked AFTER his discount. So Galakrond makes the card cost 0, then that's it. anything that increases the cost should still be able to, because Galakrond's influence over it should be over. I know that Galakrond says "this card costs zero" not "this card's cost becomes zero" but that is way inconsistent compared to the way discounts have worked previously.

@AlexT-zc5ce

4 жыл бұрын

@@fluffy7358 Goru is a "for the rest of the game" battlecry; It's like Crystal Core applying a permanent effect back in Un'Goro. It's worded wrongly, but it changes your Treants into 3/3's permanently rather than simply applying a +1/+1.

@fluffy7358

4 жыл бұрын

@@AlexT-zc5ce Really? Haven't played Hearthstone in a while, so I'm not surprised that one slipped by me, but how do you know it turns them into a 3/3 instead of just giving them a +1/+1? Is there a chance Blizzard just updated him to properly give the +1/+1?

@AlexT-zc5ce

4 жыл бұрын

@@fluffy7358 they stay 3/3 when silenced, but I see your point, it could just be a constantly refreshing. That actually makes way more sense than my original comment 'cause I remember now you can replay Goru for another +1/+1.

This Does work as intended due to its wording and how it differs from a similar card, Wondrous Wand. The differences between the two cards being that the wondrous wand says "Draw 3 Cards. Reduce their Costs to (0)." and if you were to test it, Bully actually does increase any 0 cost drawn cards by 5 per activation of the battlecry. Inversely, we see within Galakrond the text, "Draw 4 cards. They cost (0)" and if you were to bully them they won't gain the increased cost. This means that the words "They cost" means that the card cost is fixed at 0, whereas the Wand's, "Reduce their Costs to (0)" means that it only gives them a soft price reduction. It is the difference between adding 5 to 0 (Wand drawn cards = 5), and adding 5 to NULL (Galakrond drawn cards = NULL).

@RegisKillbin

4 жыл бұрын

Why is Bully's same wording "they cost (x)" different? Wouldn't it say their "increase their cost by (5)"?

I love the fact that you took the time to argument that the interaction we witnessed was incorrect. I think most other streamers would've just said "this is bulls*it". It really shows that you care. Thank you Regis.

Also at 26:00, why play Alex and not Eye of the Storm?

@StarLight_Zone_Dev

4 жыл бұрын

That was my thinking too

22:50 wouldnt betrayal on the centre poisonous dragon kill the left poison drag and murozond, then betrayal again on the remaining poisonous dragon kill tess and the 1/1 lackey?

@spoderbas5550

4 жыл бұрын

Poisonous kills the other dragon

@Drakon500

4 жыл бұрын

Betrayal does not deal damage to the targeted minion, so Double betrayal would have been better

Lmao that intro was hilarious

How much is 11+4?

The question here is that why didnt zephyrs gave him pyroblast for exact lethal or did the opponent just missed it?

@oskark7676

4 жыл бұрын

Opponent didn't attack first. Zephyrs isn't smart enough to account for the 4 damage on the board. If the opponent attacked first and then played Zeyphyrs it would give pyroblast.

@anonymous-1226

4 жыл бұрын

@@oskark7676 i thought zephyrs would always see lethal

23:40 Wait, why would betrayal times 2 work?

This exactly right here makes boompistol bully one so much worse of a card. The card should cost 10 then next turn be reverted back to 0. Rogue is plaguing ladder as every other person is playing rogue.

@Xaver_44

4 жыл бұрын

The cards discounted by galakrond Always cost zero, and even if the enemy plays loatheb the spells still cost zero which isn't the same thing that happens with the wondering wand, the cards discounted by the wand can actually change its cost

@ashleyjohnson7433

4 жыл бұрын

@@Xaver_44 i dont think anyone is arguing saying that is not how it works people are saying that logically it doesnt make sense and is a very toxic interaction for the game and only people who have run into this exact situation would expect it to turn out this way.

@ashleyjohnson7433

4 жыл бұрын

not gonna lie but when 7/10 of my games in one night are against rogue i think their might be a problem...the other 3 were embiggen druid...

Where is the card from ?

@the_goob

4 жыл бұрын

The adventure

I'm wondering what Scorch is. I have no idea what your talking about I've never seen a card called scorch in wild

@Silphanis

4 жыл бұрын

It's a mage spell that deals 4 and costs 0 if you played an elemental last turn

@sylvanadvocate1858

4 жыл бұрын

@@Silphanis Ah ok

I wonder if the coding of the galakrond reduces all cards by some amount (say 50) but the cost floor is 0 so that any card drawn will cost 0 to play. So plus 10 has no effect if that's how it's coded.

@smam7667

4 жыл бұрын

I dont think on a coding perspective it would be easier to set it to "-50" then to just make it statit at 0

It should of been 10 mana cost... galakrond changes the cost of the minion he drew(zeph) to "0." However, boompistol states, "Enemy battlecry minions cost (5) MORE next turn." That does not mean multiplication, that means that you're adding 5 MORE mana cost to zeph. So I do see what you are saying Regis and agree with you.

14:03 why zephrys doesn't give him pyroblast?

@stoeckel95

4 жыл бұрын

@@wiktorrog1428 thank you!

Boompistol's effect should override the zero-cost minion drawn from Galakrond's trigger. Would/should Alex's zero-cost dragon's (with battlecry) still cost zero after the Boompistol is played? Would/should Embiggen'd cards not cost more than 10 mana if they were drawn after the Boompistol? The last effect should trump all others and if Boompistol was the last card played, then it should override the previous conditions.

Why wouldn't betrayal have worked? 2 betrayal would have cleared board excluding one 2/3 poisonous dragon (play it on the center poisonous dragon twice). Isn't that less risky than the brawl?

at 13:55 your opponent missed lethal. He had 4 on board with the weapon, you were at 14, and because zephyrs costs 0, it would have given pyro. 10 + 4 = 14, lethal

@wolfeyq7536

4 жыл бұрын

Pyro would have cost 20 mana? or does bully not push cards above 10?

I think the developers made the interaction for battlecy minions instead of cards

Look for it Regis, Galakrond works that way but the wand from Toggwaggle actually costs 5 mana more for some reason

39:11 did he tried to bait lethal ?

4:40 I died laughing

BTW 0 mana cards from Galakrond and from Wondrous Wand are working differently. For example, when Mana Wraith is on the board the cards from Wand cost 1 mana but Galakrond cards still cost 0. I hope they will fix this because obviously, it's not correct. Both cards say "They cost (0)", why they should work differently? This is as nonsense as if Shrink Rayed minions' stats stayed 1/1 forever and buffs took no effect (they could even be immortal in that case because HP could not be reduced below 1 xD).

You could've used Betrayal on Murozond, then another on Explorer

For the deck code?

KZread here I love the argument

Imo save your apollogies, i think the question about the mana cost is a really good question, and ive had other simular incidents that made 0 sence.. as your info says, you want to teach players how to be better and this is an exelent way of doing so. Dunno how familiar you are with Hysteria but i honestly think this would be a great idea for him to make a vid bout that to end the mana unsertainty :P i dont think blizz has taken past cards as such into considderation when making new ones. Also, they should actually cost more imo despite everything said(didnt notice the first comment and everything in it, lol.. ups) seeing as he got cards.. they now cost 0, then boompistol says they cost 5 more.. the baseline would be 0, yes, but the fact that the battlecry didnt add anything doesnt seem right to me for even a second

Regis the problem with the 0 mana zephrys is that you wanted hearthstone to be consistent which it hardly ever is

Funy how before this worked the way you say its should and still does with other cards (f.e.: Vanderous wand) but now it works differently for no reason so its both stupid way for it to work and incostistent

23:10 misplay. Could have Shadow madness the 2/3, then betrayal on the other 2/3 then hit 2/3 with stolen 2/3 and leave on board your Zephrys and 1/1 lackey, which is defo better than Brawl.

@yaaeey

4 жыл бұрын

but still lucky brawl lol

Deck code?

That is why you never concede to BM. Best case scenario - you win, worst case - you assert dominance

why you use hero power on 23:00 ??? just do zephrys and do board clear by 8 mana warlock spell wtf

so, someone in the chat said how the card that costs 0 is tied to Galakrond, how about someone tests that theory and plays double hero rogue, play galakrond, get that 0 cost card, then play Valeera the hollow. If the card that costs 0 stays 0 after turning to valeera the hollow then the zephrys should've costed 10 mana, if the card goes back to the original cost then the zephrys should've stayed at 0 because it would be tied to galakrond

14:00 there is a difference between reduce to 0 and draw cards, they cost 0 ... Thats the explanation right? Does Regis want galakrond to say the cards u draw permanently cost 0 ???

@Mutavr

4 жыл бұрын

Even if galakrond sets cost to zero 0, boompistol should add 5 to this zero cost, isn't it?

@RegisKillbin

4 жыл бұрын

No I don't want that obviously, I want them to change the card to be consistent with its intuition and wording and update the danged costs.

Double Betrayal on the same minion would have worked.

I thing the counter for the lackey army of the rogue is a taunt deck....

Regis with those nerves of steel at the end. B) You can't bluff him.

Boompistol Bully: Start of the match, if you're opponent is a shudderwock shaman, destroy the enemy hero

Also let’s not forget he played a NON DISCOUNTED SI 7 agent after the zephyrs

@erfansalehi8413

4 жыл бұрын

Carestar SI7:Agent is a combo card which is a different keyword

The enchantment galakrond gives its cards is ongoing. I dont know why you dismissed that.

@RegisKillbin

4 жыл бұрын

Because the entire point is that it shouldn't be, based on card text. Persistent effects in the game have one if two setups: 1. card text active on board or hand, 2. "This game" modifiers. Galakrond has neither.

@ChadMcFresh

4 жыл бұрын

@@RegisKillbin I recommend looking for foreign translations since its the english you disagree with.

Whenever you say "Sorry KZread" it's always right after the most interesting part of the video :p

How are people not getting Regis' point? Boompistol doesn't even hit the cards in hand it hits the player. If you generate a new hand of battlecry minions they SHOULD still be affected.

23:22 1 Betrayal 8-8 hitting those 2 2 Betrayal 2-3 poison hitting 8-8 and Tess Not a full clear but it was good.

Misleading title, it seems to imply that bully does not work ("broken!! for real!"), but unless I missed it bugging out, he just meant that it is too good.

@RegisKillbin

4 жыл бұрын

It's literally at 0 seconds that it breaks. It is the intro of the video. The pinned comment has 92 comments of discussion about it breaking. The bug displayed has already been fixed in a patch that came out this week.

Blizzard team has recently made the change . Now bully will properly affect cards affected by galakron

Regis too focused on wording to notice the alexstrasza giving double primordial explorer

You're right about it. 0+5+5=10. So Zephrys costs 10.

Galakrond rogue cards still costing 0 after the bully is broken.

I mean i cant speak on hearthstone but it would work 100% cost 10 in the way effects like that work in magic

Sounds like chat was just repeating the same thing that regis just said it's a bad interaction

@MrShukaku1991

4 жыл бұрын

It may be a bad reaction but it is (mostly) consistent with other cards with the same wording. I.E. kalegos into scorch with an elemental played last turn. Scorch says it costs 1 if you played an elemental last turn, and it costs 1, even if kalegos says the first spell you play this turn costs 0. Galakrond says they cost 0, so they cost 0. I bet Dragon queen works the same way too.

@snidramon

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrShukaku1991 But it's not consistent, those have effects on the card that take effect later. If you play a Millhouse into Loatheb, spells cost 5, but if you play Loatheb into Millhouse, spells are free. It should work the same way in this case.

4:40 when you play charades and pull "you're in a huge rush, but your BF really wants a hand-job" out of the hat.

TLDR: This is a bug and Regis has proof. (WARNING THIS IS A LONG RANT) This interaction is a bug (or at least an inconsistence), and I have proof. In one of Regis's other videos kzread.info/dash/bejne/oWVorrd_hKzIYso.html At 22:55 seconds Regis already played luna's pocket galaxy, and then draws mountain giant. If the game prioritizes set cost over cost change the giant should have cost 1, but it cost 0. Since the giant only lowers it's cost once it gets into your hand, luna's applied first, then the giant changed the cost, just like what happened with this Zephrys getting his cost set to 0, then increased by 10. Even if hearthstone had a costing priority, like MTG, then it should have some system like, base cost, then cost increase, then cost reduction, then cost set. Then the Giant and the Zephrys should have followed the same rules and either been 1 and 0, or 0 and 10. The only logical solution is if the game checks in the sequence of base cost, then cost increase, then cost set, then cost decrease. However, you can still cast a sea giant for 0 mana with mana wraith on board. ...I am way too into coding, and game design... I may have a problem.

Maybe Galakrond multiplies the cost of a card by zero? Even if you add 10, 0x10 still equals 0.

There is a difference between setting the cost to 0 and reducing the cost to 0. Set means it is permanently, no matter what happens. Reduce (for example with wondrous wand) can still be overwritten. A 0 mana zephrys from wand would cost 12 mana in that situation. But i agree, it is confusing that there is a difference between those two.

I'm still not over the DH weapon lifesteal bullcrap

Card that when play that increase price of card in hand work with wonderus wand but not galakornd We can give blizzard a break because they are just a small indie company

@stevenhart6788

4 жыл бұрын

It's because they have different text. Wand says "reduce" to zero. Galkrond says "they cost zero"

@thatweirdguyoverther

4 жыл бұрын

galakrond sets the cost to 0, wand reduces it to 0.

@imchipjames

4 жыл бұрын

@@stevenhart6788 finally... thank you

@thehighestace

4 жыл бұрын

Because no other developer has ever had a bug in their game

I don't know if you've heard Regis. But Blizzard has a reputation for putting out broken shit now.

Rogue's Galakrond says "Draw a card, it COSTS 0" period.

@RegisKillbin

4 жыл бұрын

That's the same wording Bully uses...

@dudeyouresick4281

4 жыл бұрын

@@RegisKillbin Lol, sorry, Regis. My opinion in that discussion is that this is the way it should be. Increasing by 5 mana battlecries effects is a really strong effect, and, if it works the same way with Galakrond, this would be almost a sidenerf On him, since his discounts are 5, on average. You would pay 7 mana to draw 1/2 cards plus the armour(Most part of the time, I don't see people getting Galakrond to 4 draws plus weapon)

4:43 that's what she said

0:24 Skipperino regiserino

@JinKazama1993

4 жыл бұрын

Kripp knows you're cheating on him? 😮

I LOV UR INTROS

got to the point with "double zephyrys"... HA! GEEEEEIII! I m out peace!

lol the BMing fake out.

Is NO ONE going to mention that regardless of what the Zephrys SHOULD have cost that the SI 7 Agent should have DEFINITELY cost more than 3?

@francescotavella8869

4 жыл бұрын

Why ? The cost is increased for Battlecry cards, SI 7 Agent is a Combo card

Here’s an interesting thought if you think about it the amazing Reno when he is released he could theoretically denie Rez prist

Man, I'm so frustrated everytime you don't play Eye of the Storm during at critical turns. I know it has overloaded, but you will get three freaking 5/6 with taunts, One of those guys will atleast survive on the next turn.

@RegisKillbin

4 жыл бұрын

It just doesn't help you win the game typically. You buy an extra turn but reduce your ability to swing harder, which you have to do when you're desperately behind. Think about it this way. Imagine you're hanging off the edge of a cliff and losing strength, and you're going to fall soon. And somebody comes along on top of the cliff and presents you two options: 1. I'm not strong enough to pull you up, but I'll hold your hand for 5 seconds to save you some strength, or 2. I'll tie this rope around your waist and then to a tree that has a chance to hold your weight. Which option do you choose? 5 seconds of relief that still leads to an inevitable death? Or maybe even just a 1% chance that the rope is strong enough to hold you and you can make a full recovery? You choose the rope right, because you know there's a chance you'll make it and survive, and the 5 seconds of relief just delays the inevitable. What good does it do to live 5 more seconds at the cost of a chance of survival? Eye of the Storm is just the 5 seconds of relief that doesn't really give you a chance to make the full recovery. You're still on the edge of the cliff next turn, and still losing strength, and maybe even weaker because one of your arms was bearing extra weight (3 Overload). Alexstrasza is the rope. Sometimes it's just strong enough. It hits Veranus into Dragonmaw Scorcher and it holds your weight and you've increased your chances at survival. Or maybe you just die now instead of 5 seconds later, but at least you had a chance.

Could of hit the 8/8 with the betrayal

You thought you won!? No it’s just me Zephyrs

It should cost 5!! no argument needed. its the order that is important!