• Karazhan Power Rankings: Complete Edition (Standard – Kraken)
 

Karazhan Power Rankings: Complete Edition (Standard - Kraken)

by OtakuMZ on         follow @OtakuMZ1978

Introduction

I already did the (Whispers of the) Old Gods Power Rankings and I want to continue this by evaluating the cards of the new Karazan Adventure. If you comment on twitter, please use the hashtag #karazhanPR.

Like the ranking before, it will go through different itterations despite of being static. I will evaluate every card anew with every subsequent release of new cards. Why? With new cards synergies and anti-synergies may rise which weren’t possible before and with that, the power level of each card can rise or fall dramatically.

I will read all other popular evaluations and take them into consideration because I am not the best analysst by any means. ANyway, I got some cards right the last time when others were partly way off the final power level (e.g. Thing from Below). On the other hand I was also wrong in other cases (e.g. Herald Volajz). In the end, it is another subjective rating but I think the evolving aspect of it is an advantage.

Standard is the play mode for tournaments and the main ladder mode. Therefore I will make evaluations with Standard play mode in mind, not Arena or Wild paly mode, please remember this when reading. I will sort cards in each of the categories mentioned by mana cost from low to high. There will be a changelog directly below the actual ranking above the category explanations at the bottom of this page.

Again, here are the rules in short:

  1. I will update this post constantly after every subsequent release
  2. The rank of each card can change in this process.
  3. Ranking is for Standard only
  4. Please comment @OtakuMZ1978 via Twitter (#KarazhanPR)
  5. Explanations of categories and changelog are at the end of this page

Karazhan Power Rankings (45/45)

(1) EXCELLENT / STAPLE

(2) GOOD / COMPETITIVLY VIABLE

 

(3) DECENT / NICHE PICK

(4) POOR / TOO SITUATIONAL

(5) UNPLAYABLE


(A/B) ARCHETYPE DEFINING / BUILD-AROUND

(C) COUNTER / TECH  CHOICE

Tokens


Changelog

  • August 30th, 2016:
    • all (A/B) cards as well as the (C) cards are now also present in the genereal categories (1) to (5).
    • Avian Watcher: moved from (4) to (3). After some playtesting it is definitely a niche pick.
    • Babbling Book: moved up from (3) to (2). Random mage spells are just too good…
    • Fool’s Bane: moved to (3) too. After testing it the card is promising but not an auto include at all.
    • Medivh, the Guardian: moved from (3) to (2). I might be overhyped about the general greatness of all Karazhan cards, but I think he will shake the meta some more. He might be even (1).
    • Malchezaar’s Imp: added to (2).
    • Ethereal Peddler: added to (3). I hope it turns out (1), cross your fingers for some interesting rogue deck!
    • Nightbane Templar: moved from (4) to (3). I underestimated the power of tokens in paladin. The last wing has to decide if the card settles in this category or takes another step up (or down again).
    • The Curator: moved from (2) to (1). Every time I drew this card it felt like the MVP. It is solid even when drawing 1 to 2 cards and feels broken when drawing three.
    • Wicked Witchdoctor: moved from (4) to (2) and (A/B). It will not be a one because it is not viable in many decks. It is good but more in a build around way like Grim Patron is.
  • August 22nd, 2016:
    • Priest of the Fiest and Ebony Bishop: moved up from (3) to (1). Even though priest struggles, these two cards will be a staple in my opinion once priest is competitivly viable.
  • August 16th, 2016:
    • Arcane Anomaly: I underestimated thsi 1-drop by a mile. I should have known better, 1-drops usully have a huge impact and this one can get out of hand quickly;  moved from (4) to (2).
    • Arcane Giant: I think this will be good and a staple for spell based control decks. Moved one up to (2).
    • Maelstrom Portal did not bring too much impact so far. Moved down from (2) to (3). This Change might be reversed when the other control Cards (Arcane Giant, Spirit Claws) hit.
  • August 8th, 2016:
    • Maelstrom Portal: moved one up, now (2)
  • August 7th, 2016: added all cards reviewed so far
    • Medivh: moved from (2) to (3), he is too slow and has no immediate impact which makes him hard to play. Still I love the card.
  • August 5th, 2016: 3 cards added.
    • Ivory Knight: I began writing the text for my Ivory Knight infographic and crunched some number which lead me to moving it up from (3) to (2).
  • August 4th, 2016: Medivh and Silverware Golem added. Token section added.
  • August 4th, 2016: Zoobot added.
    • Ivory Knight: rated it down one step to (3). I think Azure Drake and this doesn’t look too good anymore. It is still a good option for Reno decks and might find a deck where it fits well because it is overall solid.
  • August 3rd, 2016: Pompous Thespian added (5).
  • August 1st, 2016: new cards added with rating according to recent review articles.
  • July 30th, 2016:
    • Barnes: in the process, Barnes got rated better too, moved from (3) to (2).
    • The Curator: while writing my card review article, I realized it is good in a lot of circumstances. Moved from (B) to (2)
    • Firelands Portal: see comment for The Curator.
  • July 29th, 2016: initial release of 7 cards

    • The Curator: I switched this guy around 4 times already. I think it will be a niche card, most likely in some midrange to control paladin deck. Arguments can be made to categorize it as (B) but its impact is too low to do justify that in my opinion.
    • Ivory Knight: has the potential to be (1), maybe in a new midrange paladin.

Evaluation Categories

(1) Excellent: Cards that are top-notch or potentially overpowered. Most decks would like to run them, e.g. Dr. Boom.
(2) Good: Superior cards that will very likely see frequent play, e.g. Annoy-o-Tron, Harvest Golem.
(3) Decent: Cards that normally do not make the cut for competitive play but are overall well-designed and might fit into specific decks. These cards can be powerful in Arena though or really viable for newer players but you would not likely see them in tournaments.  Also vanilla cards such as Chillwind Yeti fall into this category.
(4) Poor: Underwhelming and/or overcosted cards. These cards have inferior stats and/or underwhelming effects and will not see competitive play, e.g. Voodoo Doctor. Grouped in this category are also cards that seem to be good at first glace, but their effect are so highly situational that most of the times you will not be able to pull them off, e.g. Ghaz’rilla. The latter can arguably be fun and even powerful IF their effect goes of, of course. In any case, these cards I like to call “what-if cards” are so unreliable that they render themselves unusable in competitive play. Feel free to raise these cards to a “build-around” card or just have fun with!
(5) Unplayable: Straight out bad stats, poor card design or simply useless cards that are even too bad for casual play? You have them in your deck? Delete Hearthstone! 😉 These cards you would not and should never put in your deck, e.g. Magma Rager. Okay, one exception here: you want to troll your opponent so that he thinks you are the worst Hearthstone player alive! 😆
(A/B) Archetype Defining / Build-Around: Cards that are only viable if you build your deck around them, e.g. Grim Patron.
(C) Counter / Tech Choice: Cards that mostly have underwhelming stats but are highly useful to counter specific Cards or to Play against a very uniform meta, e.g. Eater of Secrets.