Support NeoGAF

[embalm]

The very first sentence of that link says:

"Card advantage (often abbreviated CA) is a term used in collectible card game strategy to indicate one player having access to more cards than another player, usually by drawing more cards through in-game effects"

The next sentence clarifies that drawing cards gives CA. So having less cards in your deck is CA.



It will most likely be pay for new slots. Which I'm fine with.

Please don't cherry pick from the wiki. It continues on to list several different ways to gain card advantage, like favorable trading and board clears.

 

[Servbot #42]

Trump won anyway after that shitty play, there's no justice in Hearthstone confirmed

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Trump's plays make sense in hindsight because he thought it was Molten Echo, and wasn't playing around Blizzard.

Sorry still don't think that an excuse for wasting your entire board.

 

[Super Nothing]

The very first sentence of that link says:

"Card advantage (often abbreviated CA) is a term used in collectible card game strategy to indicate one player having access to more cards than another player, usually by drawing more cards through in-game effects"

The next sentence clarifies that drawing cards gives CA. So having less cards in your deck is CA.

All that tells you is that you've used more cards. If both players are at 30 health and 5 cards in hand, but player 1 has 25 cards left in his deck and player 2 has 5 cards left in his deck, then player 1 should be in a much stronger position to win the game (the only exception would be say a Warrior that drew his one turn kill combo and just hasn't put it on the board yet). Having played more cards doesn't indicate any sort of an advantage if you have fewer cards left to draw and don't have anything on the board to show for it or any meaningful damage to the other player.

 

[crazygambit]

The very first sentence of that link says:

"Card advantage (often abbreviated CA) is a term used in collectible card game strategy to indicate one player having access to more cards than another player, usually by drawing more cards through in-game effects"

The next sentence clarifies that drawing cards gives CA. So having less cards in your deck is CA.

Pretty much. I mostly agree with the definition that having less cards in your deck is CA, making the proper adjustments for stuff like Fel Reaver. Burning cards with Fel Reaver doesn't get you card advantage. At least we can all agree on that right?

Gang Up doesn't give your opponent +3 card advantage because it puts 3 copies of a minion on your deck.

If 30 - cards drawn was always equal to your remaining library I'd be OK with that definition. Since it's not, we should just simplify it and call CA by the number of cards drawn.

 

[Phawx]

Please don't cherry pick from the wiki. It continues on to list several different ways to gain card advantage, like favorable trading and board clears.

It's literally the first paragraph. And the rest of the page reinforces the notion of card draw giving CA. Or by forcing the playing to burn cards. Or by trading minions.

But burn and trade are already understood terminology (I hope).

All that tells you is that you've used more cards. If both players are at 30 health and 5 cards in hand, but player 1 has 25 cards left in his deck and player 2 has 5 cards left in his deck, then player 1 should be in a much stronger position to win the game (the only exception would be say a Warrior that drew his one turn kill combo and just hasn't put it on the board yet). Having played more cards doesn't indicate any sort of an advantage if you have fewer cards left to draw and don't have anything on the board to show for it or any meaningful damage to the other player.

Of course. If you were in a situation like that your deck would be pretty abysmal. But you'd have unbelievable CA.

 

[embalm]

It's literally the first paragraph. And the rest of the page reinforces the notion of card draw giving CA. Or by forcing the playing to burn cards. Or by trading minions.

But burn and trade are already understood terminology (I hope).

An example might help.
It is turn 7.
You have cast Arcane Intellect twice, on previous turns putting you 4 cards deeper into your deck. You use your mana to play all of your minions. You now have 0 cards in hand, but a huge board.
I passed a few turns, and have drawn no extra cards. I cast Flamestrike, killing all of your minions, and have 5 cards in hand.

Who has card advantage?

 

[Super Nothing]

It's literally the first paragraph. And the rest of the page reinforces the notion of card draw giving CA. Or by forcing the playing to burn cards. Or by trading minions.

But burn and trade are already understood terminology (I hope).

Card draw does give Card Advantage and value trading does give Card Advantage. But saying "I have 10 cards left in my deck and you have 20, so I have Card Advantage," is not accurate. If you have fewer cards in your hand and nothing on board, you don't have any kind of advantage to speak of.

Of course. If you were in a situation like that your deck would be pretty abysmal. But you'd have unbelievable CA.

No, you probably had card advantage at one point, but blew it. You no longer have card advantage.

 

[Phawx]

An example might help.
It is turn 7.
You have cast Arcane Intellect twice, on previous turns putting you 4 cards deeper into your deck. You use your mana to play all of your minions. You now have 0 cards in hand, but a huge board.
I passed a few turns, and have drawn no extra cards. I cast Flamestrike, killing all of your minions, and have 5 cards in hand.

Who has card advantage?

The person who has less cards in their deck.

Edit: being out of gas is another bit of terminology.

Edit edit: I think you guys might be focusing on the word advantage too much. You can be ahead in certain areas but still lose. The Tortoise and the Hare springs to mind.

 

[Super Nothing]

The person who has less cards in their deck.

Edit: being out of gas is another bit of terminology.

Less cards in the deck isn't a meaningful measure of anything. And you can be out of gas with 15 cards left in your deck if you're already top decking but the other player has...CARD ADVANTAGE with 5 cards left in his hand even though he has 20 cards left in his deck.

 

[Phawx]

Less cards in the deck isn't a meaningful measure of anything. And you can be out of gas with 15 cards left in your deck if you're already top decking but the other player has...CARD ADVANTAGE with 5 cards left in his hand even though he has 20 cards left in his deck.

Like I said previously, I'm fine with calling it deck advantage. The purpose of this exercise was to find singular terms for situations.

Edit: Let's put it in terms of racing. If someone in first place is 10 laps ahead of the competition but runs out of gas, we can all agree that this is not advantageous . But he still does have lap advantage

 

[embalm]

The person who has less cards in their deck.

Edit: being out of gas is another bit of terminology.

No you are wrong. You didn't read the wiki at all and you don't fully understand WHY it's called Card Advantage.

On the same wiki page, under Forms of Card Advantage.
Read the section on Sweeper spells. Where it says you GAIN Card Advantage by using a Board Clear to kill enemeis.

Read the section on Combat where it talks about favorable trading. By using your 1 minion to kill 2 minions you gain Card Advantage.

I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong and Card Advantage is not a measure of cards drawn.

 

[Dreavus]

I strongly disagree with slayn's analysis because it lacks specificity. Reducing the entire spectrum of strategies to three terms significantly reduces our abillty to discuss these topics.

We need different labels for these two things, for instance:

1) Playing Ysera and having the opponent require 2 cards to remove her
2) Drawing 4 cards with sprint

Using slayn's terminology, these both represent "card advantage," but they are very different means by which to produce them and should have different labels to describe their mechanism and deck design.

Nothing? The concept needs a label, because we want to describe the concept in question. What label would you give it?

I would also say that both of those things boil down to card advantage at their core. It's all about the resources both players have at their disposal.

CA can work in "reverse", like in example 1. If Hearthstone had a card like Mind Rot, I would argue that it's generating card advantage in the same way that your opponent spending two cards to take care of one threat is card advantage. In the case of Mind Rot, you're spending a card and not getting any cards in return, but the fact that it makes your opponent lose two cards means you are ultimately up one card in the end. In this case and both described (Ysera, Sprint), at the end of the exchange you are up on cards/resources over your opponent which I would say constitutes card advantage.

I have no idea what kind of labels could be used to differentiate these. I suppose speaking about "value" minions as ones that are either sticky (difficult to remove and usually need multiple resources to remove) or ones that generate CA for you works decently. I think most people use the term in this way. But even then you can compare a shredder taking two cards from your opponent to remove and a Loot Horder trading with a 2 drop, but getting you a card! I would argue they're both generating CA in a similar way, even though only one actually draws you a card (that's without taking to account the fact that you need to actually spend mana on the new card or draw as opposed to the shredder's just popping right into play).

because nothing exists in a vacuum. in that case he does have minor "Card advantage", but the lost tempo vastly outweighs the advantage.

similar to how if you have tempo (major board advantage) but are at the point of top decking (horrible card advantage) the latter will greatly outweigh the former.

I think calling out 3 basic resources is fine, but you can't forsake one resource over the other one or two.

I'm not so sure about this one. Like you said, it all depends. It depends on how big your board advantage is. If I have three threats in play but only 1 card in hand, and my opponent has 4 cards in hand, based on this board state, I am way ahead in tempo and actually fairly equal in card advantage. 4 cards versus 4 cards, but a bunch of mine are in play. If it turns out I'm against a control deck and they start dropping huge guys that takes multiple resources for me to deal with, or he flamestrikes my board for a nice 3-for-1 trade for him, then the pendulum swings back to my opponent and I'm likely at the disadvantage card-wise. I think Card advantage as a concept is extremely fluid and can change on a dime.

 

[Super Nothing]

Like I said previously, I'm fine with calling it deck advantage. The purpose of this exercise was to find singular terms for situations.

Even then, I'd say the person with more cards left in his deck has deck advantage. The only advantage a smaller deck has is that they're more likely to draw the specific card that they're looking for. The player with more cards left can last longer if the game runs long and can afford to use 2 cards to remove 1 of yours since he has more total resources.

 

[Phawx]

No you are wrong. You didn't read the wiki at all and you don't fully understand WHY it's called Card Advantage.

On the same wiki page, under Forms of Card Advantage.
Read the section on Sweeper spells. Where it says you GAIN Card Advantage by using a Board Clear to kill enemeis.

Read the section on Combat where it talks about favorable trading. By using your 1 minion to kill 2 minions you gain Card Advantage.

I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong and Card Advantage is not a measure of cards drawn.

You guys are a little bit too heated for this. I'm fine with calling what I am talking about deck advantage. Or if you want to suggest that there is no such thing as deck advantage, I also don't care.

This was a fun exercise regardless and there are no hard feelings.

 

[embalm]

You guys are a little bit too heated for this. I'm fine with calling what I am talking about deck advantage. Or if you want to suggest that there is no such thing as deck advantage, I also don't care.

This was a fun exercise regardless and there are no hard feelings.

Nah, I'm really not hot headed at all. You should read the resources you're sent before trying to use them to win an argument though.

 

[Phawx]

Nah, I'm really not hot headed at all. You should read the resources you're sent before trying to use them to win an argument though.

You win.

 

[crazygambit]

Even then, I'd say the person with more cards left in his deck has deck advantage. The only advantage a smaller deck has is that they're more likely to draw the specific card that they're looking for. The player with more cards left can last longer if the game runs long and can afford to use 2 cards to remove 1 of yours since he has more total resources.

It's the other way around because it you have less cards left on your deck that usually means you've drawn more (unless you run Fel Reaver) and thus have card advantage all things being equal.

But like previously mentioned by other posters you also have to take into account favorable trades, board wipes, deathrattles, etc. that also affect CA.

 

[Super Nothing]

I'm not so sure about this one. Like you said, it all depends. It depends on how big your board advantage is. If I have three threats in play but only 1 card in hand, and my opponent has 4 cards in hand, based on this board state, I am way ahead in tempo and actually fairly equal in card advantage. 4 cards versus 4 cards, but a bunch of mine are in play. If it turns out I'm against a control deck and they start dropping huge guys that takes multiple resources for me to deal with, or he flamestrikes my board for a nice 3-for-1 trade for him, then the pendulum swings back to my opponent and I'm likely at the disadvantage card-wise. I think Card advantage as a concept is extremely fluid and can change on a dime.

You could probably refer to this as exposure. Your 3 cards on the board are exposed to being board wiped, but you have tempo advantage. You have 4 cards and board control, but 3 of your cards are at risk of being removed (exposed), he has 4 cards in hand, thus no exposure, but is at a tempo disadvantage.

It's the other way around because it you have less cards left on your deck that usually means you've drawn more (unless you run Fel Reaver) and thus have card advantage all things being equal.

But like previously mentioned by other posters you also have to take into account favorable trades, board wipes, deathrattles, etc. that also affect CA.

If all things are equal but you have fewer cards in your deck, you are probably losing. The only exception is if you've already drawn all of your win conditions and are just waiting for the turn you can play them.

 

[Dreavus]

You could probably refer to this as exposure. Your 3 cards on the board are exposed to being board wiped, but you have tempo advantage. You have 4 cards and board control, but 3 of your cards are at risk of being removed (exposed), he has 4 cards in hand, thus no exposure, but is at a tempo disadvantage.

Yup. Sometimes people call this concept "over-extending" in regards to how vulnerable you are to board sweepers, for exactly that reason!

Or in my personal arena experience "playing right into that goddamned Flamestrike!" (it's the secret hidden passive hero power all mages innately get, whether the card is in their deck or not!)

 

[Phawx]

Yup. Sometimes people call this concept "over-extending" in regards to how vulnerable you are to board sweepers, for exactly that reason!

Or in my personal arena experience "playing right into that goddamned Flamestrike!" (it's the secret hidden passive hero power all mages innately get, whether the card is in their deck or not!)

Or Mind Control Tech

 

[embalm]

It's the other way around because it you have less cards left on your deck that usually means you've drawn more (unless you run Fel Reaver) and thus have card advantage all things being equal.

But like previously mentioned by other posters you also have to take into account favorable trades, board wipes, deathrattles, etc. that also affect CA.

The complexity of taking all of that into consideration is why the terms have evolved slightly for Hearthstone. Tempo was a term introduced to simplify the ideas within Card Advantage and make more sense of a complicated subject.

Number of cards in hand vs opponent - By most streamers they will refer to this as having card advantage in Hearthstone.

Number of cards in play vs opponent - By most this is referred to as Tempo in hearthstone.

By tracking only those two things you don't need to track how many cards you've drawn, how many good trades you've made, your board clear plays, or take any other things into consideration.
You look at what you have done. (tempo)
You look at what you can do. (card advantage)

 

[ZealousD]

Have they not revealed any cards today?

I NEED SUSTENANCE

 

[crazygambit]

The complexity of taking all of that into consideration is why the terms have evolved slightly for Hearthstone. Tempo was a term introduced to simplify the ideas within Card Advantage and make more sense of a complicated subject.

Number of cards in hand vs opponent - By most streamers they will refer to this as having card advantage in Hearthstone.

Number of cards in play vs opponent - By most this is referred to as Tempo in hearthstone.

By tracking only those two things you don't need to track how many cards you've drawn, how many good trades you've made, your board clear plays, or take any other things into consideration.
You look at what you have done. (tempo)
You look at what you can do. (card advantage)

That's a useful simplification, but like most simplifications it's not always correct though.

Like in the example I gave above. Playing a minion that returns an opponent's minion to his hand does not give him card advantage.

I would also argue that tempo needs to look at health numbers. If my board is empty and I have less cards than my opponent, but he's sitting a 2 health and I'm at 30 (and I'm a hunter) I definitely have the tempo advantage.

Which leads me to my next point. Magic doesn't have Hero Abilities, but a mage ping into a Leper Gnome on T2 will generate card advantage, but be a loss of tempo for example.

 

[Santiako]

Have they not revealed any cards today?

I NEED SUSTENANCE

You'll get a full card dump tomorrow most likely.

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Empty board who cares 49 dmg from Patron so balanced.

 

[Tacitus_]

Empty board who cares 49 dmg from Patron so balanced.

Patron nothing, you couldn't do that without Emperor.

 

[inky]

Patron nothing, you couldn't do that without Emperor.

Or Warsong.

In any case, I think by "Patron" he means the strategy in general, not particularly the card.

 

[WesternHeretic]

Patron nothing, you couldn't do that without Emperor.

True.... man only way I ever beat Patron is lethal their ass like pre turn 7.

 

[quackamole]

Neirea didn't pull emperor until his 29th card and he still have enough answer to deal with basically all the threat in Trump's deck and survive.

A deck that has superb survivability, the best card draw engine in the whole game, multiple winning conditions including one turn kill of almost 50 damage on am empty board. How is this not balanced?

 

[Tacitus_]

Or Warsong.

In any case, I think by "Patron" he means the strategy in general, not particularly the card.

Yeah, but people tend to hate everything but Emperor from that deck. He couldn't have done that if he couldn't play 15 mana worth of stuff in a single turn.

Neirea didn't pull emperor until his 29th card and he still have enough answer to deal with basically all the threat in Trump's deck and survive.

A deck that has superb survivability, the best card draw engine in the whole game, multiple winning conditions including one turn kill of almost 50 damage on am empty board. How is this not balanced?

Trump barely played any threats though. Two shield bearers and a shredder?

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Patron nothing, you couldn't do that without Emperor.

Still broken no other class can do that with 1 turn of Emperor on board. This deck is miracle rogue on steroids with better survivability and card draw.

 

[Haunted]

Getting bogged down with specific labels for every single element of Hearthstone cards is going to slow the tempo of our conversations, lowering the value of discussion and ultimately negating much of the advantage we'd take from this thread into our games.

Even if no one else appreciated it, I saw what you did there.

 

[Tacitus_]

Still broken no other class can do that with 1 turn of Emperor on board. This deck is miracle rogue on steroids with better survivability and card draw.

Druids could do 40 damage with a perfect hand - which that pretty much was.

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Druids could do 40 damage with a perfect hand - which that pretty much was.

Not that hard with Patron card draw compared to Druid who does not nearly have the card draw Patron warrior has.

 

[Dahbomb]

Still broken no other class can do that with 1 turn of Emperor on board. This deck is miracle rogue on steroids with better survivability and card draw.

There are many Emperor combos in the game that can do close to 30 damage in one turn.

I do agree that the fact that Grim Patron punishes aggro makes it clearly the best deck in the game considering how strong aggro is in the current meta. However that is arguably a good thing because otherwise aggro decks would be even more rampant.

 

[Tacitus_]

Not that hard with Patron card draw compared to Druid who does not nearly have the card draw Patron warrior has.

How about Malylock then? Emperor is the problem with these combo decks.

 

[Dahbomb]

3 way tie on Archon team league for 1st place.

Value Town, Nihilum and Tempo Storm.

 

[WesternHeretic]

Problem is everything synergize so well with that fucking deck. Literally every fucking card. Either you draw a card, armor up, reduce the cost of your cards, give the stupid patron charge, or boost the fucking berserker. Half the deck is meant to kill you in basically 1-2 turn. The other half is meant to stall to get that combo with armor, card draw, and weapon to board clear.

 

[Phawx]

How about Malylock then? Emperor is the problem with these combo decks.

I love Malylock with Emperor.

 

[BlackBuzzard]

How about Malylock then? Emperor is the problem with these combo decks.

I never said it wasn't. Just said Patron warrior in its entirety is not balanced.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Emperor shouldn't be able to reduce cards below 1 cost, it should be limited like Summoning Portal.

A much heavier nerf would be to make it so that it reduces card cost at the start, not the end of your turn.

 

[Tacitus_]

I never said it wasn't. Just said Patron warrior in its entirety is not balanced.

And I argue that it's because of Emperor.

Emperor shouldn't be able to reduce cards below 1 cost, it should be limited like Summoning Portal.

Cos of stuff like this^. If you couldn't cast free whirlwinds, then that megacombo is effectively neutered, while not interfering with the main draw of the Emperor.

 

[Professor Lich]

I'm trying to remember, when Naxx/GvG/BRM released there were card changes(both nerfs and buffs). There was never any hint of them right? Blizzard never mentioned anything before hand and all card changes rolled out along with their connected release.

Just bringing it up because if that's correct, there is a chance of some balance changes. Better off not hoping or expecting anything though. It's probably why they never talk about it(if that's the case).

 

[iirate]

I think Emperor should trigger at the beginning of the turn, and any changes don't need to be any more complicated than that.

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Emperor shouldn't be able to reduce cards below 1 cost, it should be limited like Summoning Portal.

A much heavier nerf would be to make it so that it reduces card cost at the start, not the end of your turn.

Im all for that it would kill the 0 mana whirlwinds that usually cause these crazy combos.

Iirate that would kill the card like Pagle.

 

[Tacitus_]

I'm trying to remember, when Naxx/GvG/BRM released there were card changes(both nerfs and buffs). There was never any hint of them right? Blizzard never mentioned anything before hand and all card changes rolled out along with their connected release.

Just bringing it up because if that's correct, there is a chance of some balance changes. Better off not hoping or expecting anything though. It's probably why they never talk about it(if that's the case).

They nerfed Auctioneer at at/near GvG release but I'm not sure whether they talked about it before it happened.

 

[Professor Lich]

They nerfed Auctioneer at at/near GvG release but I'm not sure whether they talked about it before it happened.

I don't think so but it made sense considering Spare Parts and everything else. They have mentioned they don't like changing cards since it sets a bad precedent about balance and faith in their design. Makes sense they'd rather lump card changes with a new expansion so people don't think about them too much.

 

[Finalow]

any reason to keep playing tavern brawl after the first win? Took me only 10 tries to get there, dat luck.

 

[Raxus]

any reason to keep playing tavern brawl after the first win? Took me only 10 tries to get there, dat luck.

Nope. One win and your done. Tavern brawls do overlap with quests though if you care that much.