Ooze issue.

Posts: 91
Since the warrior's edge is dependent on how mana efficient the weapon damage is, is it fair that there are multiple cards that destroy weapons when the warrior doesn't have a card that impedes spell damage?

Anyone else getting completely owned by basic rush decks?
Reply Quote
Posts: 17
multiple people, myself included have complained about ooze; the general public backs ooze in it's current state because they are not warriors/weapon users
Reply Quote
Posts: 91
really it's just warriors, I mean, I can see a really complicated work around Tirion involving it, but that's like a three card removal at that point. Warriors are the only class that really RELY on weapons for needed damage.
Reply Quote
Posts: 260
Welcome to WoW 2.0 where warriors get nerfed and nerfed into uselessness.
Reply Quote
Posts: 47
Ya this.. Its very retarded how secrets have no counters and some people are perfectly fine with it while weapon have a big counter + a body and people said its balanced.

Warrior is pretty gimped.
Reply Quote
Posts: 279
There are exactly 2 cards that destroy weapons in this game.... one of those cards is a Legendary, so at most, a person can have 3 cards in their deck to deal with weapons and some classes don't even have any weapons for those cards to do anything to so the chances that any one person will have all three is low.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,586
and there is 2 classes that counter secrets

hunter with flare

and mage with the secret that counters spells

i know big woop, there should be at least one nuetral minion that gets rid of at least one secret, but there also should be a nuetral secret that counters one spell

but like a guy posted theres 2 cards that destroys weapons which is good there should be a counter to all
and one other card that removes a durabilty from weapons
Reply Quote
Posts: 61
Ooze is good against 3 classes (rogue, warrior, paladin) and vanilla 3/2 against 5 classes. If you run it you do so knowing it's situational. Most times it's vanilla for me, but it's nice for warrior and paladin decks that i'm not so strong against. Even when I have it I might be forced to blow it early for board position. I need to take out a berserker before it enrages, I'll drop the ooze to do it.

You do have a counter for spells by the way. Armor and life gain are 'spell damage counters'.
Reply Quote
Posts: 91
01/25/2014 09:07 PMPosted by Trollbert
Ooze is good against 3 classes (rogue, warrior, paladin) and vanilla 3/2 against 5 classes. If you run it you do so knowing it's situational. Most times it's vanilla for me, but it's nice for warrior and paladin decks that i'm not so strong against. Even when I have it I might be forced to blow it early for board position. I need to take out a berserker before it enrages, I'll drop the ooze to do it.

You do have a counter for spells by the way. Armor and life gain are 'spell damage counters'.


Well alright, but by the same logic, healing minions and life gain are also 'weapon damage counters'.

It doesn't bother me that there are weapon removal based cards, it bothers me that the class that is most affected by ooze doesn't really have much going for it to help against spell based removal.

Yes, a weapon is basically like having damage and charge- but the hero still takes damage if we strike a minion and a taunt creature can keep us from striking the enemy hero. Warriors need a way to help protect their minions from spell based removal. Otherwise, there is only one way to play the class effectively, a straight to the face rush deck that hopes it can get in enough damage in time.

It's making the warrior a kind of one dimensional class
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]