Bolvar Fordragon already had a “X happens while in hand” mechanic, so it isn’t entirely new.

Cool! I really liked the Naxx stuff, despite my bitching about how much of Heroic mode was just a luck-check on the draw you got. Looking forward to another set of those challenges to play through. And, of course, new cards.

It’s cool to see more mechanics like Bolvar, stuff that wouldn’t be possible in a physical CCG.

Awesome news. Hopefully the single player challenges will be of the same nature as Naxx. IE: Trivial to get gameplay features and hard to get things like card backs etc.

I think I agree about Dr.Boom, although he is very commonly used I am not so sure he is over powered. Just a really solid card. But for variety sake maybe he should get a wee nerf.

Naxx was maybe a slight touch on the easy side for most of the normal modes, but yea.

(It also took me six tries to get the Naxx Hunter class challenge because of RNG, but that was a RNG of RNG one…)

The nice thing about the Naxx hunter challenge was that there wasn’t a question of whether you were doing the right thing or not. You didn’t have to wonder “Did I have the right strategy and just get screwed by the RNG? Or do I just have to take a different approach?”

Add me to the ugh Dr. Boom bandwagon.

Handing that challenge to an eight-year-old is some of the best fun I’ve had with Hearthstone.

I don’t know how a 9/9, distributed across 3 bodies (which keeps virtually any removal from having full effectiveness) with 2 mini-crackles tacked on, is not balanced.

The vanilla test for 7 mana would translate to a 7/8 (roughly). But he’s essentially a 9/9, plus ability upside on the boombots.

The reason everyone’s using him is because he is very blatantly overpowered relative to his cost. It’s okay for a card to have upside over a vanilla card, but it needs to be conditional somehow. For example, it grows over time (Gruul) or his upside only shines on certain board states (KT). Being legendary is actually a tiny condition due to the 1-copy-per-deck constraint (less reliable deckbuilding synergy), so that can justify a tiny power bump. But nowhere near this amount.

I wonder if changing the Boombots so that they can hit any character (rather than just enemy characters) would help balance it?

That would be good rather than reducing the explosion damage per-se, but I’d still nerf the body to 7/6.

Well I think you have to do apples to apples with other legendary’s really. The other neutral 7 is Baron Geddon who isn’t bad although i agree not as good as Dr.Boom, but 2 damage to everyone else end of each turn is pretty good. Class based ones I would put Archmage Antonidas above Dr. Boom and maybe Neptulon?

But I agree a little nerf is probably in order. I would reduce his hit points as suggested maybe take em down to 4 (within flame strike range). I think its important to keep his attack at 7 or above so he can get BGH’ed.

7/6 and randomizing the damage across both players would go a long way to balancing him.

Even still, 9/8 for 7, distributed in a way that’s at least somewhat resistant to removal is still distinctly above curve.

I think most people agree with that. I’m on board anyway. Though the more I think about it, I think a nerf to 4 or 5 health would go a long way.

They could also add a mana to his cost as part of the solution, but 8 is already so crowded and 7 is so underpopulated I’d rather they fix him and leave him at 7.

EDIT: For what it’s worth, I crafted a gold Dr. Boom some time ago. So I’m not a hater or anything – I use him because I’d be crazy not to. But let’s just say I’m confident I’ll be getting my 3200 dust back some day.

Good point about the 7 cost space. Deffo need him there as its so light on neutral epics.

Looks like you can pre-order Blackrock now, if you want the bundle price. I’m probably just going to spend gold. If it was $10, I’d pay the money to support the game, but I feel like I can get more for my gaming dollar elsewhere at the $25 price point. And besides, I can’t imagine Blizzard needs my support the way a smaller developer would.

Here is a cost-efficiency breakdown of buying different things with cash vs gold.

Blackrock (or Naxx) is $25 or 3500g (140g per dollar)
The closest pack SKU equivilent is 15 packs for $20 or 1500g (75g per dollar)
The most economical pack SKU is 60 packs for $70 or 6000g (86g per dollar)
A cost-equivalent amount of Arena runs (12) is $24 or 1800g (75g per dollar)

So if you’re the sort that drops occasional money into the game, and if you plan to acquire Blackrock in its entirety anyway, you should absolutely buy the $25 Blackrock package with cash. It’s almost twice as efficient to buy Blackrock (or Naxx) with cash than to buy anything else with cash. Save your gold for packs and arena runs.

The only reason you should buy Blackrock with gold is if you don’t drop money into Hearthstone ever. Otherwise, if you are just flushing value down the toilet.

Alternatively, you should buy it with gold if you’ve got thousands of gold sitting in the bank and most all of the GvG and basic set cards you want already.

The only money I’ve spent on Hearthstone to this point is the first $1.99 (or whatever it was) to enter an Arena back in beta, mainly so I got my gold Mekkatorque they were giving away. Every once in a while I wish I had all the cards, but most of the time I really don’t care since I’m not really into the constructed game. Arena is the play mode I enjoy most, and simply by doing the daily quests, I have enough to play 2-3 times a week and still have a positive gold balance. I don’t have 3500 at the moment, but I’m well over 1000 and shouldn’t have too much trouble getting the rest without much change to how I play.

Having said all that, thanks for the breakdown, slantz. It’s good info for anyone trying to decide which way to go!

I had 700 gold saved up and then proceeded to blow it on ill-advised Arena runs where my best showing was 3-3. Sigh.

The last legendary I got was Mimiron’s Head. I’d rather have gotten Dr. Boom, but the few times I’ve actually managed to create Voltron, it’s been pretty fun.