Yeah it is, but I thought let's make a card that shakes up the game a bit. There are so many sticky minions atm that most often have a deathrattle attached. But perhaps it's too powerful and something like just the activating the Deathrattle trigger for you might work. Ah well it's not going to get made anyway.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Hearthstone |OT3| Preparing for the Ball of Spiders Meta
- Thread starter ZealousD
- Start date
- Status
Yeah it is, but I thought let's make a card that shakes up the game a bit. There are so many sticky minions atm that most often have a deathrattle attached. But perhaps it's too powerful and something like just the activating the Deathrattle trigger for you might work. Ah well it's not going to get made anyway.
Aquavelvaman
Banned
That card vs Sneeds, heh. That would be fun. I wouldn't mind a low-cost card that was simply "Silence all enemy deathrattles" or "Battlecry: Deathrattles will not trigger this turn."
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
I just completely destroyed a grim patron deck with control paladin. On the last turn he had a remote chance of winning he pulled off his second grim patron combo with warsong commander and berserker, but used the berserker to kill my KT instead of going face. He would have had to deal 30 damage to win.
Then after he managed to clear my board, because warriors needed something that strong in the first place (meh), I showed him how to truly clear a board and establishing dominance.
Wild pyro + equality + volcanic drake + solemn's vigil + loatheb, all for 9 mana.
Then after he managed to clear my board, because warriors needed something that strong in the first place (meh), I showed him how to truly clear a board and establishing dominance.
Wild pyro + equality + volcanic drake + solemn's vigil + loatheb, all for 9 mana.
Which solo adventure would you guys say is more important deck-wise, or at least more fun? This game kind of rocks so I want to buy one of them an unlock the other with gold, and I want to buy the more important one first.
I play as Warlock if that makes any difference. Any need to know tips for Warlock by the way? I win around 75% of my games so I think I'm doing ok, but I'm still not always happy with my deck so just thought I'd ask. I watched the Trump Teaching vids.
I play as Warlock if that makes any difference. Any need to know tips for Warlock by the way? I win around 75% of my games so I think I'm doing ok, but I'm still not always happy with my deck so just thought I'd ask. I watched the Trump Teaching vids.
Something that dispels an entire mass of enemy minions?
Naxx is more important
Rosenskjold
Member
Wow the salt is real when you repeatedly have lethal next turn, and people always seem to have sunwalker on them in arena 
Two games in a run lost with enemy on 1 hp :/
Two games in a run lost with enemy on 1 hp :/Mobius and pet octopus
Member
There are mainly 2, liquidhearth power rankings and tempostorm meta snapshot.
I personally prefer tempostorm meta snapshot when over power rankings, but you also gotta keep in mind that the meta changes pretty quick quite often - and at different rankings. The higher the rank, the more focused the meta is generally.
Rosenskjold
Member
If 'Ysera Awakens' kills both champions, it counts as a win for the one playing the card? Is that an intentional mechanic?
Haunted
Member
Pretty sure both lose?
That should not be the case. If you kill both with hellfire both loose aswell.
Professor Lich
Member
I thought normally if both players die at the same time, it's a draw. No one wins or loses. Just had this happen when I played a Shadowbomber. However it might be different for arena. I don't play it enough to be sure.
Professor Lich
Member
Thinking about it, it's kind of insane there isn't a draw screen. It's really rare but still, you'd figure it'd be done quick for a competitive game.
That might just be me though. In a game I worked on, if people tied at the end, it'd break everything, so I could be a little biased.
That might just be me though. In a game I worked on, if people tied at the end, it'd break everything, so I could be a little biased.
Professor Lich
Member
So this was interesting. I must of disconnected from a tablet match. Long story short, after he casted a spell, everything froze with the card hovering. However, after a minute or so, he starts casting more cards, arrows and all, both from his hand and from where the deck draws. Last I knew, if you disconnect from a tablet match, you auto-lose since you can't reconnect. Bit of a bummer but I was probably going to lose anyway and it's kind of cool to see five cards hover over each other.
Best part though is that even though it looked like I was afk/disconnected, the other player was still spamming emotes.
Best part though is that even though it looked like I was afk/disconnected, the other player was still spamming emotes.
Regarding the existence of face decks: I think people overlook the reasons they ought to exist, even if you don't play them and even if they frustrate you sometimes.
You may think you run a control deck, but you haven't seen anything if you just make rush decks vanish from the game. The only thing stopping, say, a priest deck with 2x mind controls and ragnaros and ysera and boom and whatever else from just running over your deck are those rush decks you hate so much. The reason nobody plays those extreme control decks is that they lose to face hunter and zoo which never give them enough time to set up.
Yes, your control deck sometimes loses to rush decks. But if rush decks didn't exist, your deck would just lose to super ultra control decks instead. The only thing keeping those decks chock full of 8/9 mana legendaries in check are rush decks. At least rush decks are generally cheap to put together.
You may think you run a control deck, but you haven't seen anything if you just make rush decks vanish from the game. The only thing stopping, say, a priest deck with 2x mind controls and ragnaros and ysera and boom and whatever else from just running over your deck are those rush decks you hate so much. The reason nobody plays those extreme control decks is that they lose to face hunter and zoo which never give them enough time to set up.
Yes, your control deck sometimes loses to rush decks. But if rush decks didn't exist, your deck would just lose to super ultra control decks instead. The only thing keeping those decks chock full of 8/9 mana legendaries in check are rush decks. At least rush decks are generally cheap to put together.
I was going to post something similar but thought I was probably the only one:
Recently, ONLY when I am about to win the game pauses at my opponents move and the thing you mentioned happens. The game just locks up and I have to hard shut down the app on my iphone (and thus of course - lose the game..).
I think what frustrated me is the fact for Rush Hunters all the cards they use are viable early on. Most other Rush decks (including mage) really count on the fact that you get the right ones early one. It just feels like hunters ALWAYS have the cards they need since pretty much all of them synergize (sp?) perfectly in one way or another.
Yes, face hunter decks are often in the position when they have (for example) lost board control, run out of cards in hand, seem to be completely out... only to top deck, say, an arcane golem and do 6 damage to face with that plus hero power.
The deck is about 50% cards which fit that description, though, so yeah, they're going to top deck like a champ more often because their whole deck is made of top decks.
Conversely, a particularly slow control deck may only have 6-7 cards which really qualify as "early game," which means a huge portion of the time you're going to be desperately hoping to get just those 6-7 cards to start the game with. Your odds are much lower.
If you can imagine a game where everyone must play all 30 of their cards and then the winner is decided only once this has occurred, then face hunters would lose almost all the time, as most of their cards are individually pretty weak. But again, if the game really were like that, then your deck probably wouldn't be on top, either; some priest deck with 2x mind controls and a bunch of giant legendaries probably would be.
When you are ahead, always play safe. You should have traded if you didn't have lethal that turn.
True, but you lose your streak in Constructed.
Here's another way to put it: yes, we've all been frustrated by face / rush decks before. But have you ever fought (for example) a Paladin which just has a ridiculous 6-9 turn? Let's say Sylvanas in to Boom in to Ragnaros in to Ysera? And each time you mop up one of his big bombs, he just plays another until you run out of answers?
That's also really frustrating, and I suspect you'd see that happen far more often if face hunters and zoo locks disappeared. There would be very little incentive not to play a deck with a monster late game curve if there were no fast decks to punish them for starting the game with a bunch of 6 and 8 drops in hand.
That's also really frustrating, and I suspect you'd see that happen far more often if face hunters and zoo locks disappeared. There would be very little incentive not to play a deck with a monster late game curve if there were no fast decks to punish them for starting the game with a bunch of 6 and 8 drops in hand.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
@serv
FON would be lethal even if you did trade.
It really depends on how many cards are left, how much hp he has left, how many swipes have been played, is swipe the only card... etc..
If you had enough to kill him the next turn without going face with cenarius, then it is clearly a mistake. If you didn't, or even if you did, it is a judgment call based on how many cards he has left to draw from, the amount that make you lose by trading etc.. The answer isn't always clear tbh. There are often valid reasons to go face and valid reasons to trade. If you forced him to trade the bot into the cenarius, for example by bringing his hp low enough, then you made the right choice.
There is also the chance you would have lose to swipe regardless of whether you traded or not, granted you'd have another turn to either prepare or recuperate from it. At the very least, losing to like a 1/10 chance of happening is not worth over thinking. Because in the same scenario, 9/10 other times you'd have won. Granted, if you chance of winning by trading was higher than 9/10, you did make a mistake by choosing the lower chance.
FON would be lethal even if you did trade.
It really depends on how many cards are left, how much hp he has left, how many swipes have been played, is swipe the only card... etc..
If you had enough to kill him the next turn without going face with cenarius, then it is clearly a mistake. If you didn't, or even if you did, it is a judgment call based on how many cards he has left to draw from, the amount that make you lose by trading etc.. The answer isn't always clear tbh. There are often valid reasons to go face and valid reasons to trade. If you forced him to trade the bot into the cenarius, for example by bringing his hp low enough, then you made the right choice.
There is also the chance you would have lose to swipe regardless of whether you traded or not, granted you'd have another turn to either prepare or recuperate from it. At the very least, losing to like a 1/10 chance of happening is not worth over thinking. Because in the same scenario, 9/10 other times you'd have won. Granted, if you chance of winning by trading was higher than 9/10, you did make a mistake by choosing the lower chance.
SilentRacoon
Member
Dat feeling when you have 20 low cost cards (1-3) and all your starting cards are 5-6, even after replacing them at the beginning.
Yes God draws suck but everything you highlighted is limited to 1 per deck. Where as almost every burn card is not. Hence their odds are much higher to draw ideal cards before you even get a chance to slow them down.
Face deserves to exist as do most odd decks but they could use a nerf bat to give other decks a chance. Dr. Balance nerf and Emperor nerf would also do wonders for keeping face viable too.
Fixed1979
Member
New page! Signups close tomorrow at midnight.
Round Four of The NeoGAF N/A Hearthstone Superstar Open Challenge Season One!
Round Four of The NeoGAF N/A Hearthstone Superstar Open Challenge Season One!
paperboywriter
Member
Borrowing from MTG, there's three archetypes: aggro, control, combo. Aggro exists to set the pace of the format. If you run a deck that can't pass the test that the relevant aggro decks have established, particularly for combo decks (if a combo requires Turn X and aggro consistently beats that combo on Turn X -1), your deck isn't viable.
If you want a slower format, you neuter aggro and have the (in my opinion) boring-as-shit midrange supplant aggro as the faster decks in the format.
As you've noted several times, there are significant consequences to slowing down a format: control becomes stronger, control becomes the boogeyman, and control is typically buoyed by more powerful cards which invariably are rarer and thus necessitate a higher dollar investment. The dollar threshold to get into competitive is always higher in a control-skewed meta.
Note: all of the above is from a former dedicated RDW/WW/stompy aggro MTG player who finds the Hunter class an awesome distillation of everything good about those decks and hates the "let me fart around for awhile so I can play My Cool Expensive Win Cards; it's unfair you won with stupid cheap dumb cards before I got set up" decks, so I'm biased. Either way, the above is a decent description of what happens to a metagame when the hammer comes down on aggro.
Despite all the talk about the prevalence of face hunters I seem to face Warlock's most of the time and they sure love their Nax cards so go for that, judging purely by the way they play you'll probably need to craft Void Terror to make the most of them though.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
If "aggro" had several different viable variants I might agree with you, but face hunter is a special case that requires almost no skill to play (go face or make a monster trade when needed) but has all the benefits of playing a deck that requires higher skill to play. It's like the degree mill of Hearthstone - all you have to do to win is show up. If you don't get the right cards to counter face hunter there is literally no recourse for the opponent. Far less so for slower mid and control decks. One deck shouldn't be able to warp the meta of Hearthstone so readily.
Zoo lock can be very aggressive with very strong board presence early. The deck labeled "machine gun mage" which has become very popular recently (with flamewakers, mana wyrms and tons of low cost spells to beat you down very early) has tremendous early pressure, as well.
Face hunter is not the only agro deck. It's the fastest agro deck, but there always has to be a fastest. If we got rid of facehunter, then something else would become the fastest instead.
Please note that unlike Cagey, I have no conflict of interest or personal bias here (that's not intended as a slight, Cagey; I'm glad you admit to your preferences / playstyle openly). The only two classes I have level 60 of are Priest and Warrior (and I do NOT play Patron decks). I can say this as a Priest player: if Warlock and Hunter agro decks went away, Priest would be much too powerful, and Priests would become the new boogeyman instead. You need these fast decks to keep the ultra control styles -- like mine -- in check.
No offense taken, I think it's better to be upfront because it's inevitably going to be asked. I enjoy the playstyle in faster TCG formats not because I dislike control as a playstyle, but rather my disdain for midrange (which I find boring). I like control when there's a struggle to reach stabilization in a faster format. Any dislike of control on my part comes from the price tag, first and foremost, and overestimating the higher skill levels necessary.
If changes reduce the power of Face Hunter, there will be a new Fastest Viable Deck that will be incrementally slower than the current Fastest Viable Deck. The Zoo and Flamewaker Mage decks are damn quick right now. If the changes that impact Face Hunter also impact those decks, or if future changes impact the new speediest decks, then the format's speed gets reduced considerably.
I have no concerns about the Hunter class, or any class really, getting knocked down a peg. Before my long HS layoff, my deck-of-choice were hyperaggressive Paladin decks in early 2014.
I do have concerns about the format slowing down and thus the cost barrier for entry rising considerably.
To further illustrate that point Priest is in my experience the most complained about class by completely new players waddling around between ranks 25-20. Priest's hero power, common 1 for 1 removal, mind control (as these games tend to go to turn 10+ a lot) and even babby's first buff combo crush inefficient decks.
"But you're supposed to go 6-7 wins!"
"You must suck."
Those are the responses I get for complaining about arena runs.
RNG giveth and RNG taketh. I had a 10+ worthy deck, but I just drew like shit compared to my opponents. I'd have gone further but one of them topdecked exact lethal with wolf rider + hero power.
E: And now it DCd me and won't let me back in. Just great.
SilentRacoon
Member
Funny that you mention that, It was my favorite class since I started playing and actually got me into rank lvl 16 with just a deck of basic cards.
While not my most competitive deck, I do have a Priest deck which runs 2x cabal shadowpriest, 2x mc, 2x thoughsteal, 2x mind vision, and 2x shadow madness, along with sylvanas. I never get more "threaten" emotes than I do with that deck.
People clearly find the "your stuff is now mine" mechanic very un-fun.
MetroidPrimeRib
Banned
I have been waiting for this Patron Warrior to end his turn for FOUR MINUTES. I know he is there, he keeps emoting and scrolling over cards. Something weird happened with Counterspell blocking Commanding Shout (I think) and now there's no rope.
Deck so broken it broke the game.
Deck so broken it broke the game.
Haunted
Member
Remember when MC was 8 mana? Fucking ridiculous.
MC was the least of the games problems back then.
I've had a 12-win worthy decks for the past couple of runs, but my mulligans card draws were shit and the subsequent ones.
Drew from the bottom of the deck for the first 4-5 turns and then go 1-3.
My highest wins were from fast aggro decks (lots of 2 drops).
Seems like it. I DCd in the middle of arena and it won't let me back in.
E: now it let me back in, with a loss of course T_T
Alternate heroes inc?
Bottom shows outline of new warrior portrait.
Could it be this guy? Magni Bronzebeard
Bottom shows outline of new warrior portrait.
Could it be this guy? Magni Bronzebeard
Mass Dispel feels like a pretty awkward effect to put on a battlecry. Would have to be a legendary, maybe statted like an owl or spellbreaker.
depths20XX
Member
Man some people really get heated in this game. Even when they beat you.
Guy beat my freeze mage with his druid. He then friend requests me. (he taunted me the whole game)
Me: gg man, great name btw (his name was Doucheman)
Him: get rekt freeze faggot
I guess he IS living up to his name so I can't be mad.
Guy beat my freeze mage with his druid. He then friend requests me. (he taunted me the whole game)
Me: gg man, great name btw (his name was Doucheman)
Him: get rekt freeze faggot
I guess he IS living up to his name so I can't be mad.
I do love how every deck has their "haters." Obviously a good number of people hate facehunters, but a great deal of people hate priests as well, as we just discussed. Some people hate the thoughsteal/mind control/cabal cards which take their stuff. Still others hate combo decks like Patron or like Freeze mage which basically never lets you do anything until they have their combo and then they blow you up.
I've seen people sneer at others because they "net deck," which is when you just copy a popular deck from the net, but also when people take a popular deck and then make significant variations on it, like adding healbots to zoo or something. When freezing traps started making their way in to face hunter, I saw a lot of people sneer at that, as if the person is surely incompetent because he can't even play the "correct" face hunter deck.
In summary: every deck is hated by someone. I suspect the underlying common feature is that everyone hates the decks that frequently beat their decks.
I've seen people sneer at others because they "net deck," which is when you just copy a popular deck from the net, but also when people take a popular deck and then make significant variations on it, like adding healbots to zoo or something. When freezing traps started making their way in to face hunter, I saw a lot of people sneer at that, as if the person is surely incompetent because he can't even play the "correct" face hunter deck.
In summary: every deck is hated by someone. I suspect the underlying common feature is that everyone hates the decks that frequently beat their decks.
- Status