Skip to main content

Opinion: Hearthstone Witchwood Expansion

So, far, Witchwood has been interesting. It has shaken up the meta a lot more than I think Kobold and Catacombs did and possibly more than Knights of the Frozen Throne. In doing that, it seems to be sending Hearthstone down what I consider a dangerous path.

Let’s start with the dungeon run mode though. I enjoyed this a lot. I’ve heard some people complaining about how less content came with it than there was with K&C, but I enjoyed the quality of the monster hunters and figuring out how each of them worked. It could be challenging, but rarely frustrating, and the fights were very stimulating once you decoded them. It also solved the problem of runs in K&C where you had no idea what the final boss might be, so you just had to kind of make the cheesiest deck you could, rather than know that if you picked out the right emblems, you would at least do well against that monster hunter's final boss. Hearthstone has created some surprisingly cool characters in its time and the ones introduced in this expansion rank with the best of them (I am a particular fan of Toki's final boss, who had me in stitches when I realized what she was). And the fight with Hagatha was suitably epic for all the buildup.
I'm glad that they ran with this character with the Taverns of Time event. It feels like cool characters they invent for these expansions rarely reach their full potential. 

Next onto the keywords. Rush is the obvious solution to the problem that Hearthstone has been having, where it wants to have charge characters, but it doesn’t want charge characters that could deal 18 damage to the face in one turn. We’ve sort of passed that boundary considering what you can now pull off in Wild, but the devs don’t seem very concerned about anything in that format so it doesn't really matter. I find it funny that the devs are fine with you summoning a board full of 6/6s or 3/9 taunts in one turn by playing one card, but when it comes to dealing a ton of damage in one turn by playing four or five cards, that crosses some invisible line.

Still, I think Rush is a nice gift to players who prefer control and know that their low-cost taunt will inevitably be destroyed by a spell while the 3/2s hit you again, without any option for real recourse. Mixing the Rush mechanic with the shifting-stats mechanic was also interesting, although I feel it made them the Rush cards worse for the most part. Rush also works nicely with Recruit. I hope that Rush becomes permanent to the game like Discover is. More Rush minions might mean a more control based meta, which I am more than okay with.

Echo, on the other hand, seems like Inspire. I expect that the team had fun designing cards with that mechanic this expansion, but they will never use it ever again. I think that’s a shame since it’s an interesting alternative to the “spend all your mana to get an effect roughly equivalent” cards from Whispers of the Old Gods. I like the versatility that comes from it, as it essentially lets you put high-cost and low-cost cards with simple effects into your deck but save on deck space at the same time.

Now, the deck staples. This is where I am worried because I enjoy the more control-y decks. I like combos and I like gimmicky decks. That means I should enjoy that the current archetypes are so defined by unique, powerful cards. But I just think they are too dependent on a single, powerful card. Taunt Druid is okay at best without Hadrinox, Shudderwock Shaman is bad without Shudderwock. I remember liking the decks based around Nzoth (I played some of them), but those had powerful deathrattle minions and you could win without drawing Nzoth, whereas all of these remind me of the Cthun decks. If you go up against them, unless you can deal 30 damage (often times more) before turn 10, you are just crushed because the entire deck is based around buffing the effect of one card and you are screwed the second that card comes out.

I don’t think these decks are as oppressive as Cthun was, but I do think that I prefer it when a deck is based around a single idea, but still has multiple win conditions. For instance, I run a deathrattle based hunter deck that I really like, because it has rush potential, but it also allows me to go into the midrange and late game because I can clone powerful deathrattle minions and trigger their deathrattles. If my deck was based around only say, Savannah Highmane, I don’t think it would be very enjoyable. But I also have the Abominable Bowman and Cairne in there, so I can pull off these combos and the result is different effects. That’s a lot more satisfying for me, and I dislike it when I’m faced with a deck that just must basically stall until a certain turn. It makes the game feel inactive and it feels like power creep that every game must involve more insane combos or rush abilities, just to win some games. I don’t really care about Hearthstone feeling competitive (I don’t think it ever was), but I do care about it being fun, and I don’t think these well-defined archetypes are as fun, because of how restrictive they are.

But I’m sure lots of people are enjoying the madness and I’m sure there’s lots of experimentation to be done, where those archetypes don’t have to revolve around a card or a couple of cards working together. I just hope that next expansion doesn’t involve as many decks revolving around a single legendary or a couple epic minions and spells.

Thanks for reading and have a nice day!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Review: Freakonomics by Stephen J. Dubner and Steven Levitt – In which Economics prove to be cooler than Algebra

Novel: Nonfiction THE CHARACTERIZATION. WAS. INCREDIBLE. I jest of course, as this book contains no characters and really isn’t like any books I have previously reviewed. This will make it difficult to review it, as in the end, the purchase really just depends on whether you would buy and read a book SIMPLY to know some interesting facts and get a slightly skewed perspective. Levitt says at the end, that he knows the book won’t make a big difference. It might make you treat a few people in certain jobs differently, it might make you distrust common knowledge more often. But other than that, I can scarcely say that the book will leave an emotional impact on you. It’s not necessarily boring so much as…not engaging. Let me start from the beginning. The book was written by Steven Levitt, an economist, and Stephen Dubner, a writer. Levitt is apparently something of a wild card in the economist biz, as he comes to conclusions which disturb many, and enjoys looking in...

Review: Zen in the art of writing by Ray Bradbury – The literary equivalent of getting high

Ray Bradbury is my favorite writer. I love his short stories, his novels, his poems, and Fahrenheit 451 is my favorite book of all time. I wanted a book that would make me a better writer but would not be boring and tedious. So when I found out that there was a book by him, about writing, I decided that I had to have it. I had looked up some good books about writing and the moment I saw the name Bradbury I clicked on it. I scrolled through a list of quotes from the book and was fascinated, there are many great quotes from the book, and each one seemed to have life energy and being to them. So after reading only several quotes from the list I became very hyped for the book. And I was not disappointed because Bradbury writes with enthusiasm and honesty. While starting the first two chapters I became so enwrapped with the book that I went outside and began yelling the words out like a preacher quoting the bible (I was not drunk at the time, I was just very happy and really I’m j...

Short story: The Long Trail

When I was younger, I was walking on a trail. My family would often visit trails on vacation, we were not the hotel, lounge about kind of vacation family. My mother and father both loved the wilderness, as did I and the majority of my four siblings. But this particular trail was longer and more tedious than any other trail in memory. It seemed to stretch on forever, and the gravel it was made from certainly didn’t improve the condition of our feet. I can’t recall how many times I had to stop because my legs or the legs of one of my siblings hurt. But we trudged on nonetheless, our stomachs growling all the way. Our whole family wasn’t together, my father was up ahead of all of us, my mother was behind me, Jacob (my second younger brother) and Noah (my brother) with our little sister Lilly. My older brother, Gabriel, was bringing up the rear. I remember Lilly catching up, and us stopping to stare at some deathly white worms, which lay on the surface of a stream, spotted a...