I am not saying warrior is the best or worst or toxic.
I am just wondering about card design
Testing dummy is a 6 mana 4/8 card with taunt and a deathrattle deal 8 damage to all enemies.
On its own i would say its a powerful card, in a very similar fashion to horizons edge. This card has great stat for its cost and a very powerful deathrattle that hits on the level of a pyroblast. It’s very comparable to deathknight marrow manipulator.
The problem is that the card can be triggered and resurrected in multiple ways. Isn’t it doing too much damage with the bring it back again mechanics that are possible?
It’s 8 damage randomly split against all enemy targets. That’s VERY different from “8 damage to all enemies.”
Marrow is significantly worse unless judged from being strictly an offensive nuke. It’s way more conditional and has way worse long-term payout. Think about it - you have to trade INTO or otherwise waste REMOVAL on the dummy, and THEN it still gets value. Marrow’s value is front-loaded, though it’s got harsh conditionals attached and is less of a presence on the board.
On its own I’d say it’s decent. I really like the 4 attack - anything less, on a 6 cost, and I feel like it needs a PROFOUND effect or value generation to be worth it. Mech tribal means it can synergize well. Deathrattle that is often scary enough to warrant playing around it. Good card.
In the warrior package, though? Ironically I have a hard time slotting him. There are just plain BETTER cards. At 6, we also have Sanitize and the Druid Tourist. And for other neutrals, we have the likes of Sunspot Dragon, Orgami Dragon, Incindius, Sylvanis. And of course, Dorian + Shield Block or Craftsman’s hammer + Stoneskin armorer. Like, 6 mana gets a LOT of competition, ya know?
I don’t think I’d agree with that assessment. You CAN use it as a finisher, but I don’t think it’s “meant” to be one. I think it’s meant to force multi-for-one trades and that makes it tempo/value gen. Nuke means kill. If you’re going for win-con with Dummy, you’re either trying to get a square peg in a round hole for the fun of the challenge of it, or you simply don’t have round pegs to begin with.
Either way is fine, but the card itself is hardly anything to complain about.
I don’t think it was a suggestion. I think he was attempting to describe the card and typo’d what it does. I also corrected him on it in my first post.