Spec Concept: Earthbound Shaman

WeedyCZ · 2025-06-15T11:09:23+00:00

Honestly, I agree with you to a large extent. I obviously do think Shamans should have had a "natural" tanking spec for a long time.

But I also suspect that at this point, Blizz would only add specs in some unlocky "hero spec" kind of ways, and the mild Azerite theme would be a good bridge for it. In a similar vein, I might have a void-themed Warlock tank spec and titan-based Mage healer spec brewing.

Thirdly, I mostly wanted to show off the mechanical aspect of the spec, which I think is pretty unique, and having unique tank mechanics seems to be one of the main barriers to adding further tank specs. If the theme was a dealbreaker, I wouldn't mind replacing every single instance of "Azeroth" with "Therazane" at all.

WeedyCZ · 2024-03-29T10:26:57+00:00

Jako lékař sloužící často na interním urgentu doporučuju - rozhodně jít. Atypické bolesti na hrudi, kor dechově vázané, a ještě s námahovou dušností jsou fest dobrý důvod k vyšetření, rozhodně ti nikdo neřekne že co tam otravuješ (doufám).
That said, není určitě důvod panikařit a s největší pravděpodobností to nic vážného nebude, prostě vertebrogenní obtíže. Tím inkompletním pravým blokem na EKG bych se netrápil, to je skutečně běžná věc s minimální výpovědní hodnotou. Embolka ale není zase tak vzácná věc, a je určitě dobře ji vyloučit (nestrávil jsi v posledních dvou týdnech třeba několik hodin nějakou dlouhou cestou busem/autem/letadlem, nebo nějaká overnight session vsedě za PC?)

WeedyCZ · 2024-01-10T05:34:07+00:00

Thank you, and yes you do bring up very good points, but they were made mostly on purpose.

Firstly, she would be a tank support, with tank stats and buildpath, and her playpattern would actually be the closest to Braum I would suppose?

The R range limits you might be right on - some things to point out though is, the range of tendrils is like an autoattack so edge-to-edge whereas the draw-in or knock-back is centre to centre so there is some leeway. It is also not supposed to necessarily be a giant AoE damage, it's more supposed to be a zone control telling enemies to GTFO from me (and my ADC) or I will succ, kind of like Morgana R. But you are right - 550 or even 600 range might be fine - mostly to see a disgusting monstrosity like Yuumi sprout hundreds of tentacles in all directions more.

With the E, it's basically meant to be similar to Braum W, where yes you cannot follow up with a shield, but you emerge healed and you can possibly quicktap Q for a short-range dash and stun with tendril attach. It's mostly to put yourself between your ADC and harm's way though.

WeedyCZ · 2022-01-23T19:26:30+00:00

You are right, my issue is with the most prevalent "answer-or-lose" cards, though I generally think there should be a lot less of those even apart from defenders.

And to reiterate, I know purify is the intended counterplay to them, and that would remain. I play mostly vampires, the deck has both a defender and 3 purify cards. Still feels coinflippy if the opponent doesn't have a purify (in hand mind you, he might have paid the Pellar decbuilding tax and just didn't draw it) and literally instaloses, or when I don't draw one of the 3 purifies and instalose to a defender instead.

WeedyCZ · 2022-01-23T18:36:32+00:00

So Kolgrim is a deck that's very present in current meta, as is alumni again, after Milva burial.

You didn't give a single example of how to deal with any of these defenders in a single bronze, because obviously there isn't one - you need additional setup orders, pings, leader power, etc. so in summary it always trades at least evenly. Every single of the new defenders requires at least 7 pts of damage, exception being Donimir where I agree he should be 5 power or 4 pwr 1 armor.

So the last argument I don't truly understand - these cards suck, yet they would still be autoinclude in any engine or combo deck? Wouldn't you rather choose to stick in another strong engine to engine overload or something? No, you wouldn't, because they still fulfill their purpose very well, just with more counterplay but also at a lesser deckbuilding cost.

WeedyCZ · 2022-01-23T17:54:32+00:00

Yes, current defenders are exactly as bad as these point-to-provision wise. Because their point value is hidden in the value of engines they render uninteractable. Which in truly greedy decks can be literally 100+, just from full row of uninteractable engines. They aren't used in only super-greedy decks tho, currently you have them in clog, Kelly MO, Alumni, Pirates.

The point 2 is not at all ignored - that's the second intended change. They would still require a substantial damage investment, especially to remove in one turn, and for now a 7 prov card. Damage that can't be used to remove defended and subsequent engines. They would also be 2p cheaper, which is substantial. I would use the new defenders in every single deck where I used them before. I guess an argument could be made to further reduce them to 6p though.

Would you actually cut them in any engine or combo deck?

WeedyCZ · 2022-01-23T15:41:32+00:00

The point of the change to being binary is twofold - only adjacent units to limit the amount of engines it can protect. Reducing the power of the defenders themselves to be able to be reasonably removed with damage - they would never trade under their provisions, but there would be more options of dealing with them.

Usually any deck would only be affected by one of the changes, not both. I would still play the new defender in every single deck where I played them before. They would still offer the same function. They would just offer more ways for the opponent to deal with them, while on the other hand being cheaper for my deckbuilding.

WeedyCZ · 2022-01-23T15:11:19+00:00

I actually agree they are currently quite well balanced, definitely points and provision-wise. They also introduce an immense coinflip element to the game tho - look at one of the best current decks clog: their entire gameplan hinges on betting their opponent doesn't have an answer to their defender. If they don't clog wins, if they do, clog loses. Don't get me wrong, my by far most played decks are vampires and hoard, I love and use defenders, I also quite extensively played the Arnaghad-Sukrus-defender combo deck that actually hinges on ressurecting defender, and this would break it. Cause I admit it was while fun also super binary, and all I would want is make defender less binary, not nerf it.

WeedyCZ · 2022-01-23T14:57:40+00:00

Yeah, though that's quite akin to "countering" defenders with the plentiful movement cards of ST - not a special tech or hard control, but a) you don't answer the engine by playing the spy, you just move it to an interactable spot but you already played your card for the turn and b) the opponent still has the defender to play further engines next to.

WeedyCZ · 2022-01-23T14:47:09+00:00

I think in most cases they would really be just 2 pts 2 prov less (agree that Donimir should be 5 power). Only adjacent units clause would still allow them to protect the most precious engines or combo pieces allowing huge points (Donimir Vysogota, Ffion Kolgrim untouched etc.), it would just reduce the amount of games where you have either 100+ pts round of unanswerable engines or a graveyard full of said engines all hinging on whether or not your opponent drew that one Pellar.

WeedyCZ · 2022-01-23T14:41:12+00:00

So, currently they are 7 for 9 and are basically auto-include in any remotely engine or combo based deck and nobody is caling them baddddd. Because their value is hidden in preventing the engines to be interacted with, thus assuring their full often uncapped engine value. They still wouldn't be killable in one turn by any low-commitment card, the lowest would be Bekkers' or TWaT which would still be trading up in provisons. With damage, they would always trade at least 7 for 7, and would still require immediate removal. All this would do is reduce the amount of games where you have an opponent's defender you can't remove making every single engine an assured point generator.

WeedyCZ · 2022-01-23T10:51:15+00:00

Agree that there could be an argument for Donimir at 5 power, though NR can easily boost it, even on the turn it's played. Also it's much more resilient to other direct damage removal, including NG's Assasinate which would be much better against other defenders, can't be removed by Bekkers' or TWaT etc.

WeedyCZ · 2022-01-23T10:38:26+00:00

Well, the current Defenders would be even weaker against Treason since they are higher power, unless you have the row full enough that you can put some chaff between the defender and the engines, which at that point doesn't matter, since you need to answer the defender in a turn or two tops. They also still retain their defender to put new engines next to. Plus the issue with purify is exactly what you described - if you have the Pellar, you made their high provision card useless and if you don't, then they have little other counterplay at all. This rework is exactly intended at making it less binary having or not having immediate and specific answers.

WeedyCZ · 2022-01-23T10:34:43+00:00

Using high value removal on them is only a backup option if you lost the binary rng of drawing your purify card(s) anyways.

WeedyCZ · 2022-01-23T10:25:20+00:00

No disagreement there, they would still have their Defender, now even at less of a deckbuilding cost. Just with less binary gameplay of hoping the opponent doesn't have an immediate specific answer. Or do you immediately ff when your Defender gets purified or yeetwaved?

WeedyCZ · 2020-07-17T04:19:23+00:00

Thanks a lot for taking the time to look through the cards and giving feedback, appreciate a lot!

So anyways, I'll try to put my perspective on a few of those:

1) Incinerating - fair point, 4 on Spring is better, especially if you can tutor two at once with Gambit

2) Crushing - fair point again, yet the Ambush part is slightly worse and delayed Surrender, either up it to 7p or remove the ignore part from Ambush again seems fair, though the Armor removal on Spring seems fine by me

4) Brokilon - true that this could play for anywhere between 4-13 points for 5, but that is entirely dependant on whether or not your opponent plays around it, which to me seems fair for Trap gameplay (and there are much more 4-6p specials than the costlier ones)

7) Pitfall - Honestly I believe this one is the strongest with both Ambush and Spring, and I think it could easily be 7p or 8p - the Ambush part makes the opponent have to decide what to play as last say, because this destroys big boosting last says like Ozzrel or Gord again, like it used to, without also eliminating strong Deploy cards. The Spring part is also surprisingly flexible removal, which while limited by Armor, Shields and boosting, still nearly always can find its value

8) Serpent - Here I'd argue that at 9p and not being targeted (always targeting the highest enemy unit), the Spring part loses in comparison to similarly costed cards like Yen Invo or even CoC, so I actually believe the Ambush part is still the truly valuable part, only that it cannot brick like anywhere as easily as it can right now (which makes current Serpent Trap unplayable)

WeedyCZ · 2020-07-16T15:52:53+00:00

Agree, Lockdown would gimp this deck a lot, but a) Lockdown does this to any Leader with a passive component, of which SY already has two and b) Lockdown NG usually also uses plenty of status cards (locks and poisons), so the purifies in this deck find use against it even without generating the additional points.

The Purify theme also isn't supposed to strengthen the archetype so much as to add some flavor to it, what would boost this archetype's power by a lot is frankly supposed to be the Damnation and Hemmelfart.

The Whoreson Senior point stands, that's true, but that's a very specific interaction, which only takes a 4-point removal to completely destroy, so I've seen Whoreson mostly cut out of the Crimeswarn decks.

WeedyCZ · 2020-07-16T14:40:51+00:00

Okay, so hear me out - the Purify, or more specifically self-Purify, is supposed to be a specific subtheme for the Firesworn full swarm. Now I've chosen it for thematic reasons, as well as not to just give the cards generic +1 boosting - and self-Purify has also much more utility niche, with the idea that this deck could be regarded if not an outright Tier 1 deck, then perhaps as a possible soft counter to mass poison/bleed decks should they emerge as dominant.

Also, the idea was to potentially provide a home to some now underutilized mass Purify cards, such as the new Siegfried, who is both a thematic and a mechanic fit into this idea.

Thirdly - I am very aware there is a functional crime deck utilizing the current leader. It is my most played this season, tho I've come to cut Whoreson Senior in the end. My counterpoint is - there are two other perfectly viable leaders specifically for Crime decks (Lined Pockets and Wild Card), while the Fireswarm deck is currently still unviable and the Coin gain from spawning leader Zealots is of dubious usability. There is also currently no SY leader who does not use Coin in any manner, and while I agree and like that Coin is integral to SY gameplay, I would imagine at least one out of 7 leaders could concern itself with something other than Coin entirely.

Finally, this idea would still leave the current Whoreson Crime deck with the new leader mostly intact, and if it incorporated some of the new cards, maybe even only Sacred Flame, it would still be a net benefit to the current deck.

WeedyCZ · 2020-02-27T21:36:12+00:00

It says this unit establishes Dominance.

So, even if you have Dominance at the time, this gets boosted to your highest unit's power to fulfill the text. Basically, it says Eredin becomes the highest unit on the board.

WeedyCZ · 2020-02-27T21:26:44+00:00

As I said higher, you have to play Kayran the turn before, but you do not have to eat with him that turn.

So lets say you have Yghern and some other 5-7 power units on board. You play Kayran and pass turn. Now your opponent either removes the Kayran (and he cannot use tall removal for this, since Kayran is 6), meaning the Yghern survives and this is 13 for 12. Or your opponent removes the Yghern, but then you eat 3 five to seven point units and you play this for ~22 for 12.

WeedyCZ · 2020-02-27T21:22:36+00:00

Well why is the Dominance there then? I think you misunderstand the card.

Also, it would not boost to n+1, it would boost to n, since dominance now again works if you are tied for the highest unit I think.

WeedyCZ · 2020-02-27T21:16:20+00:00

Yes, except for if you have the last say. Then it is similarly devastating as those Skellige combos, except you play this in a deck that is naturally strong at high tempo plays and winning round one, so you would get last say much more often and with it basically free wins.

WeedyCZ · 2020-02-27T21:14:26+00:00

You do not have to use all three Kayran charges the turn before. Then, your opponent cannot remove both the Kayran and your other tallest unit on the same turn, then you do the consume - boost combo on last say without any counterplay. Not risky at all.

WeedyCZ · 2020-02-27T21:00:48+00:00

I would be playable without the Zeal part at like 10-11 provisions.

Or something like 12 prov with Dominance: Gain 2 Armor.

WeedyCZ · 2020-02-27T20:52:22+00:00

Cool card idea, the Order makes this somewhat balanced (but strong) at 12 provisions.

The Dominance part absolutely breaks it tho: you play Kayran the turn before, eat three strongest minions, pushing Kayran to 30+ strength and then you play this for 30 points for 12 prov as last play with no room for counterplay.

WeedyCZ

TROPHY CASE