Sincerely the wording at galakround is wrong then.
It should say summon. Since it not says summon but PLAY it would repeat battlecries.
2 Likes
you dunce.
2 Likes
Atleast I’m not here a day late ya toss pot!
1 Like
Just to add to this, I played Murozond after a max invoke Shaman Galakrond today and did not get the weapon.
I can only think of two reasons.
-My own Priest Galakrond was at stage 2 invoke.
-I was also actually in that stage 2 Galakrond form at that time.
Still not sure why but thought I’d add that anyway.
Also, fairly obvious but I can confirm that playing Murozond after Dragon Pack will give you the buffed version if you’ve invoked your Priest Gala twice.
When I used Murozond the turn after a Priest used Murozond, it recasted the cards that the first Murozond recasted. I wasn’t expecting anything but an 8/8. Weird card.
British Texans have new insults I find out about every day.
2 Likes
Yes, we have many. Sadly I cant post them 'cos, well, theyre insults and with my history…
3 Likes
I would say Murozond repeats Battlecries. Almost sure it does. Since ot repeats spells. Why shouldn’t it repeat Battlecries?
I’ve tested it before and it does not repeat battlecries.
Neither does Tess, and they’ve have almost the exact same wording, so I think it’s safe to say murozond shouldn’t repeat battlecries
You play Murozond, HE plays the cards, while YOU summon the minions.
If you just tested it I must be wrong then. Definitely would have expected otherwise though from reading the card text
Honestly Murozond should play the battlecrys too, with random targets. It’s already a pretty bad card against minion heavy decks as getting a bunch of bodies on the board won’t save you from dying next turn, and generally speaking most of the strongest minion power plays these days comes from the battlecry effects, not even considering quest shammies.
As it stands right now, Murozond is only really good in two situations: when used after your opponent used a situationally good spell like Flamestrike, a hero card, some secrets or Pocket Galaxy, OR if you’re already winning and slamming Murozond is win more.
Otherwise, replaying the BCs on random targets as well would go a long way towards making Murozond a good card without breaking it. Even played after a Shudderwock would be fine as it would then replay your battlecrys, not the shamans, and since Murozonds bc would still be in effect it wouldn’t replay its own bc.
Though now that I think of it, if a priest played Mura earlier and seanced him back into hand to play against shudderwock later that could create an infinite loop, one that could easily be accounted for with a special ruling between Shudderwock and Murazond but… I don’t really trust Blizzard to spot that interaction and apply said ruling without breaking other things with their spaghetti code as well. Damn, this is a pickle I just got myself in here…
Edit: Easy fix, just nerf Shudderwock, he only has a few months left and has been in the limelight since he was released, and Shaman needs a nerf anyway, might as well finally give the wock his dues!
3 Likes
Let Murozond repeat battlecries.
#justiceformurozond
1 Like
i was wondering same, why exactly spend 1.6k dust to craft this to see that its not working as suggested…bs.
3 Likes
OP here.
Loving the feedback. At least I am not crazy in thinking the card is broken or at least not working as intended.
Points made.
Shudderwock - repeats BATTLECRIES, when paired with Galakrond it resummons the 8/8s and gives the shaman another 5/2
Tess - PLAYS all cards for your opponents class, we have seen it use spells & summon minions
Murozond - His word literally says PLAY all cards your opponent played.
Well if my opponent played Galakrond, got four 8/8s and equipped a 5/2 than my Murozond should be literally doing the exact same thing.
But lets say do to LOLcoding, the Murozond was trying to turn me into Priest Galakrond, then AT minimum it should have destroyed 4 of his minions AND equipped the claw. But no, I was turned into Shaman Galakrond, given the claw. and poof, nothing else.
Imagine if you were playing Shaman Galak and for shiggles you play Galakrond and get none of your silly broken 8/8 storms with rush… that wouldn’t make sense because you PLAYED a card that does that effect. For me it was the same thing, I got 2/3rds of the cards powers and sheepishly thought I had made a 500 IQ play when in fact I gutterballed a nice 8 mana turn and proceeded to throw the match when I might have been able to use said turn to counter play.
To the guy above who was talking about C’thun, unless the person who stole C’thun was also using C’thun themed cards, if the C’thun was stolen it would only be a base version with no buffs. (unless stolen via Mind Control, or other steal control while on board cards)
1 Like
Murozond is definitely acting weird.
When I play him, I’m not 100% sure which cards he will play, which seems to be an issue. I usually know exactly what’s going to happen.
As far as the weapon goes, I think the weapon is counted as a SEPARATE card (IE, you are equipping the weapon for free and the weapon is, in fact, a separate card…because if you hover over it, it’s a card and you can get it re-equipped)
It’s definitely weird.
1 Like
I think the weapon being equipped is not a part of the BC, as I said above. Its a part of the Invoke transformation effect, more like the armour gain portion of playing Gala.
When you “ play” a card, the battlecry should go off, no? When you “summon” a minion you lose the battlecry. It would be like playing a spell but not getting the spells effect and explaining it by saying “it says play the spell, not play the spell and get its effect”.
1 Like
Not entirely. A played minion is also a summoned minions, while a summoned minion is not always played.
Played only comes from hand, summoned doesnt matter how it hits the board (inc. being played).
Battlecrys require being played, and Murozond is the only played card in this sequence, so the only BC that activates. Murozond playing a card =/= you playing a card.
Muruzond’s text specified playing, not summoning, cards from last turn, which is the only point where we disagree. However, you have very concisely stated what I stumbled through, so I applaud you.