And a full board

@@ishga1407...and what a board! Y'shaarj, Rag, Lich King, Voidlord... xD

Now that's fun

@@florianvanloo4109 don't forget cho!

Did you try the Expired Merchant/Dinomancer combo? ### IniniteV2 # Class: Warlock # Format: Wild # # 2x (1) Kobold Librarian # 2x (1) Plague of Flames # 2x (1) Power Overwhelming # 1x (2) Defile # 2x (2) EVIL Cable Rat # 2x (2) EVIL Genius # 2x (2) Expired Merchant # 2x (2) Nerubian Egg # 2x (2) Serpent Egg # 2x (3) Devilsaur Egg # 2x (3) EVIL Recruiter # 2x (3) Void Terror # 1x (4) Baron Rivendare # 1x (4) Shadowflame # 1x (4) Spiritsinger Umbra # 2x (5) Carnivorous Cube # 2x (6) Cruel Dinomancer # AAEBAf0GBJMB+w7JwgLnywINzgbFCfoNq8ICjccC8tACi+ECtJEDiJ0D/KQD/aQDvaYDnakDAA== # # To use this deck, copy it to your clipboard and create a new deck in Hearthstone

I cannot find the deck list anywhere can sum one pls share it ??

@@minecraftcrafter999 Sorry boy, but this is not the same deck. Not even close.

Nah, man, you really should watch the description of the video a bit more often than once a year. AAEBAf0GBO8IlMcCj4ID8IYDDfcEzgfEFNkVzxavrALUswK8tgKSzQLy0ALO6QLSmAP9pAMA

I think that was one of the most broken things I've seen in hearthstone

Technically it is currently in standard too hmmmmmm

Yeah i think he played his spells because he knew it was playing against Dane and let him pull it off

Nah, he still had 5 other spells. If dane didn't get the 1/6 or 16% chance of hitting cataclysm, he would have had lethal the next turn. I mean there's a chance if he kept scheme dane wouldnt have hit cataclysm (becomes 14% chance to hit cataclysm instead), but are you really going to play around that small percentage when you win in every other scenario when you play scheme?

@@noelcabrera9892 thats if all those other cards were spells but yeah i get ya

@@notputtingmynamehere They were. The spells have a red number, so you can just pause the cata part and easily see he had 5 other spells plus cata.

6 cards were spells

what does it mean

1337 is leet in leetspeak

@@Satyriceon do not spill the sacred words

She does. I think legend stuff did a video where that happened and she just kept getting bigger and bigger every turn

You write that as if it is a bad thing 😭😀

It's not really unintended either. They only care about weird interactions when they're really broken.

what

TL:DR Yesn't

seems useless lol

... Ben Brodes gets Goosebumped for no reason

NICE

Erich's Insight. The fact it discards makes sense... the fact it remains corrupted kinda does since High priestess’s description is add a copy of this card (so it keeps corruption). Im pretty sure if you buff her and discard both copies are buffed so the fact corruption stays makes sense too.

@@ghornisbae1653 yeah i get what you mean. Im just saying the card text doesnt imply that its the discard mechanic. It should say corrupt lowest cost card, discard it at end of turn ya know? Cuz technically it could just make it disappear instead of discard it?

@@erich1380 So, something you may find interesting is that functionally, there's no keyword difference between destroy, discard, burn, or "corrupt" in this specific scenario (corrupt is different for cards like corrupting mist though). d You can test this by targeting voodoo doll onto a minion, sapping the target, then killing the doll. It will "destroy" the minion in your opponent's hand, but it will play the discard animation instead, and trigger any discard synergies (for example if you discarded high priestess jeklik with this method she would duplicate). Similarly, targeting a minion with voodoo doll then casting entomb on the target (putting it into your deck), then killing the voodoo doll will cause the target minion to be "burned" from your deck, acting identically to if you had overdrawn it. In summary, almost all methods of card "destruction" are identical; but the outcome is different based on their location. If the minion is in play, it dies, triggering deathrattles. If it's in hand, it's discarded. If in deck, it's burnt. "Corrupt" in this instance is simply telling the card to be destroyed at the end of turn if it isn't played. Since it's in hand, the destroy becomes discard. The only exceptions to this (that I know of) appear to be skulking geist and flik skyshiv, which simply delete cards still in the hand or deck without triggering any discard or burn animation/effects. Similarly, the amazing reno's power of making things "dissapear" has unique functionality compared to normal destruction, as it prevents "on death" triggers (like corridoor creeper), deathrattles, and ressurection.

@@Bluutuber yeah good analysis. I cant help but feel sometimes that alot of those things werent planned and just kinda happened on coding accident. Small indie company after all

@@erich1380 That's the thing, it's not a matter of planning or not planning. What's happening is that the "destroy" functionality was implemented on a very simple basis. Anything that is a card can be destroyed, and almost everything in hearthstone is a card, even heroes, active weapons, active secrets, its all cards, at all times. So, when they implement new mechanics revolving around the "destroy" effect, it uses the rules already in place, making things much simpler for the devs, but leading to very unusual interactions sometimes. The only times special destroy interactions are planned is with the exceptions I noted, skulking geist, flik skyshiv, and the amazing reno. They're specifically programmed to ignore the default destroy effect and apply their own unique one.