And, this deck IS going forward. It did not exist before the announcement, therefore it is a contradiction of their stated identities.
ehh the class identity announcements are their design goals for the classes
No, it doesnt. In this case they explicitly stated Shamans have weak card generation as a part of their identity. That was BEFORE this deck even existed. There is no room for interpretation for deck after the fact, they said weak at X, it should NOT be one of, if not THE best at that for a NEW deck after the fact. They changed the Rogue Plague due to it not fitting the identity, yet allow this? As I said if it was Murloc Shammy, which existed prior to the announcement, thats a different story.
Subjective. Objectively no class should be the strongest at something theyre supposed to be weak at, yet here we are.
yes, there is. If you list a class as being weak in X, then dont make it strong in that aspect. Thats simple logic. You dont say one thing, then do another. It makes you look the fool.
Just 'cos you arent interested in discussing the topic doesnt mean Iâm not. You are welcome to leave at any point, I am not forcing you participate in it. The topic is worth discussing to me, and I will continue to do so. Dont like it, the doors that way 
Yep, and they failed with Quest/Lackey Shaman. Show me how its in any way, shape or form weak in card generation.
Nope, I am right. QS is FAR better and more consistent at generating cards than your Hunter dream scenario. FACT! For Hunters the game would be over far before your hypothetical could even be achieved for it to be considered consistent. Why? Because they are weak at sustain/healing to survive long enough to draw 20 cards to achieve it!
You are welcome to leave, I am not going anywhere.
1 Like
they are trying to tell us their current goal and what kind of cards we can expect the class to get in the future
they never said they were going to HoF cards from standard sets but for some reason you seem to have been expecting it to happen
EVIL Lackey. The deck did not even remotely exist prior to their Dev Insights blog, that would be acceptable - like Murloc Shammy & Shirvallah Pally - but it came AFTER the fact. They changed the Rogue Plague due to their âclass identityâ thing. They were aware of the potential of Lackey Shammy prior to SoU launched. Yet, somehow, this slipped thru the cracks?!?
IDK what part of that you are failing to comprehend. If it was an OLD (pre-announcement) deck that got stronger, thats one thing. The fact this deck didnt even remotely exist until WELL after the fact is another. It IS a deck from the future (going forward from) of that announcement. So why should it be exempt from Blizzards stated class weaknesses, let alone have one of those stated weaknesses be its strength?!?
Think about it, 2 (TWO) of Shamans strongest decks this year directly contradict their class identity. One existed prior to the Dev Insights blog, so gets a pass on technicality⌠The other one didnt, so why should it get a pass?
I already proved you wrong and youâre putting your fingers in your ears. You are not wanted here if you plan on lying.
Coming from someone who believes that Hunters are more capable of drawing through their entire deck than Control Warrior, might wanna be careful when throwing around the âLâ word buddy.
Quest shaman is just another example of how blizzard doesnât learn from their mistakes in the past.
the class identity pretty much told us what to expect from future expansions starting from uldum
you seem think they shouldve HoF any cards that contradict it pissing off a lot of players who expect those cards they only removed cards from the sets they arent planning on rotating out
thats how they see the classes in the future
instead of rotating out all cards like you want them to do know theyll just let them in standard until the time they are supposed to rotate out
i think you are complaining about this waaay to early
wait until the rotations
Indeed. This deck came into fruition AFTER Uldum, therefore, is a contradiction of their stated class identities.
I think the ENTIRE evergreen sets should be rotated, yes. That is because ITS HAPPENING ANYWAY!!!
This deck was not a thing until AFTER they posted their class identity, thats a fact. IT IS THE FUTURE FROM THEN!!! IF you cant see that, then you are blind. They announced class identties LONG before this deck became a thng. FACT!
So it is perfectly reasonable to call their dev insights blog on the matter into question for this particular deck. They EXPLICITLY stated that card generation was a weakness of Shaman. They then make this deck a thing, AFTER the fact.
No, thats not how it works. The Rogue Plague was CHANGED before launch because it didnt fit their identities, yet you think this acceptable??? Its not old cards that made Quest/Lackey Shaman a thing, its NEW ones.
No need to wait for rotaton, especially for a deck they were aware of prior to launch! They failed miserably, thats a fact.
If you cant see the above then you are, simply, blind to reality. This isnt Murloc shaman, which existed PRIOR to the announcement, its a NEW deck that happened AFTER IT!
And, if you were actually paying attention, nothing could be further from the truth. I have been anti-HoF since it was announced, show me a single example of me saying otherwise. I will wait!
I have not asked for a single card to go to the HoF EVER, I have asked for the entire B&C sets to be rotated, as they are doing that anyway⌠1 card at a time - but not once have I said âHoFâ a card, and thats a fact jack. Dont accuse me of that, because it is literally a lie.
2 Likes
Announcing weaknesses and limitations was not he problem. We need more, not less communication. Otherwise that would imply following that god damn awful approach they have is okay,as long as they do not communicate it.
It actually does. Youâre interpreting that being weak means Shamans must never ever have a chance to have a deck that is the exception.
No offense, but I donât think you understand the meaning of subjective or objective.
it is an objective fact that exceptions exist. Shamans right now is one such exception.
It is your subjective opinion whether such a deck âshouldâ exist.
Um⌠the statement you were quoting has me saying you canât declare whose âwhyâ is correct.
Your response⌠has nothing to do with that. It looks like youâre declaring your subjective interpretation of how things âshouldâ be is the law in which we judge things.
Again, youâre free to blurt out your opinion on how the game should be. But in the end, thatâs just like, your opinion man.
Itâs like you canât read. I never said you canât talk about it. I even said you can go right ahead and talk about it⌠just that I wonât be the one to talk with you about that.
As in, find somebody else to talk about those things.
Oh please. This is one of those âaccuse the other side of doing the very thing youâre doingâ
You are the one who keeps replying to me. Youâre the one who insists on talking about your subjective stuff, even after I told you thatâs not what I was talking about, or feel like talking about.
Youâre the one who is welcome to leave me alone.
1 Like
Lol, so you want to have the last word on something uou have no desire tslking about? Makes perfect sense.
I want to talk about shamans, but only the parts I want to talk about (e.g the objective parts)
You last post seem to just want to attack me as a person.
I didnât have the last word on something I have no desire to talk about though. My desire was talk about the objective things. This has been what Iâve been focused on
When you talk about objective things with inaccuracies (such as you declaring something is objective when it is not), I corrected you.
When you talk about the others things, I basically just state they arenât what I want to talk about (e.g thatâs subjective, thatâs just your opinion), and leave it at that.
This is consistent with what I desire to talk about.
But it is objective. For a class with card generation as its weakness Quest Shaman is objectively too strong at generating cards. âbut exceptions should exist!â No, a weakness with an exception is a LIMITATION. Weaknesses should not have âexceptionsâ, at least not on this level, that defeats the purpose of having it listed as a weakness in the first place. It is currently a STRENGTH of the class. This is more than just opinion, if you think its not then you obviously havent got much experience either as or against the deck.
If you dont wish to discuss that, fine 
theres the door, there are many topics I dont like discussing either, so I show self-control and avoid them altogether. I do want to talk about it because I find it ridiculous just how many cards the class with it as a weakness is capable of consistently generating.
No, what you said there is not objective, as the core is an objective judgement
Itâs objective fact shamans have a stated weakness
Itâs object fact shamans right now have a quest that ignores that weakness
However, itâs not objective, but subjective, that this exception should not be.
It is in your subjective opinion that having a weakness means they can never ever have an exception (to your again subjective opinion, thatâs a âlimitationâ).
Another tell that it isnât objective: the word âshouldâ. You canât infer a âshouldâ or an ought from objective facts. Look up is-ought problem.
No. Iâm just repeating what I said earlier: youâre the one who started and continues to reply to me (I originally replied to the thread OP), as if youâre the one who wishes I talk about what you want to talk about.
Youâre the one who needs to leave me alone, and take this rejection well.
Really, itâs baffling why you keep showing me the proverbial door when Iâm the one rejecting you. Do you also tell women to get out of the bar (that you do not own) when they reject you? Never heard of that pick up strategy
You know this whole âGoing forwardâ class identity argument is pretty garbage. Lackeys donât rotate for nearly two years, and neither does vulperia scoundrel, so until then quest shaman will have access to the same nutty card generation as they do today. If your argument is that âgoing forwardâ you believe that shamanâs card generation will be a limitation, well planning ahead for the game state TWO YEARS from now is pretty terrible.
4 Likes
You either want to discuss it, or you dont. It is objective that weaknesses are something a class is supposed to have minimal access to, blizzards words, so to say exceptions are fine is wrong.
There is no point in having weaknesses if youâre going to make exceptions to them.
You want me to leave you alone? You first stpp trying to get the laat word on a topic you claim to have no interest in talking about.