It really grinds my gears (family guy reference) when people only look at cards in the completely objective manner of: Playable or Unplayable.
I think this way of seeing cards shows ignorance. Hearthstone is a game that you win by having a few things:
1) Better skills.
2) Better luck.
3) Better deck.
There is no "4) better cards". I know you're probably sitting there in your chair thinking "this guy's an idiot, of course there is a "4) better card" criteria. Well, then allow me to answer you with a few examples:
1) The majordomo mage deck that got to top 100 legend.
2) Malygus Warlock.
3) Deathwing control warrior.
4) Freeze mage.
5) Kolento's combo 1TK deck.
These are just very few examples of decks which people reached legend with, and not all of them run the very best cards in particular. What makes them good is their synergy.
The awesome thing about new cards is that it brings out a whole endless range of decks. Not all the cards have to be, not OP, not very good, not even just good, to be good in certain decks and to get you to legend.
Thanks allot for reading all of this and respectfully let me know if you disagree or do agree!
TLDR: What decides how good ANY card is, is the deck that it's in.
You only need a 51% winrate to get to legend. You can get there with any card if you're stupid/psychotic enough to play through it. Your examples mean nothing.
Of course we're going to objectively judge cards because we want to see new things in most of our games. That's not what's going to happen right now.
You only need a 51% winrate to get to legend. You can get there with any card if you're stupid/psychotic enough to play through it. Your examples mean nothing.
Of course we're going to objectively judge cards because we want to see new things in most of our games. That's not what's going to happen right now.
That's exactly what people said when all the cards in the decks I mentioned came out. And look what fits the accomplished.
Synergy obviously matters, but the independent strength of each card also matters. Even the most combo-heavy decks have to run at least some cards that are just independently strong in order to be successful. There is a reason that majordomo deck ran Dr. Boom instead of War Golem.
Decks relying PURELY on synergy tend to be inconsistent, and thus they are not really solid choices for laddering. Don't confuse this with combo decks. Sure, their main win condition is the combo, but they do not rely PURELY on synergy, most cards they include are good on their own as well. The Majordomo mage, for example, contains 29 cards that are commonly used in competitive play and... Majordomo. It can win a lot of games without even playing Majordomo, he is just one of the late-game threats in the deck, which is only viable in mage decks because of their ability to survive with low health a.k.a. Ice Block. Maly-lock also contains cards which are mostly common in competitive play, it's not like the deck made terrible cards work. Terrible cards are terrible. Period.
You misplaced my words. I never said that decks should purely rely on synergy. I said that cards that used to be considered "terrible", as you say, ended up being, through synergy with the deck, the best card in the deck, if not the winning condition.
Combo decks are great, but not the only example for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
Synergy obviously matters, but the independent strength of each card also matters. Even the most combo-heavy decks have to run at least some cards that are just independently strong in order to be successful. There is a reason that majordomo deck ran Dr. Boom instead of War Golem.
I agree with you. All I'm trying to say is that people shouldn't rule out any card before it is confirmed that the card is "unplayable" in ladder.
Majordomo is classic example.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
Yeah, sure, there are some cards which were considered to be bad, than they found their places in some decks, but still: MOST of the cards in a deck are good cards which do well on their own as well. These cards you are talking about aren't actually terrible, they are just really situational, so they need a special "environment" to actually work. I'm not sure what the point is, but if you just wanted to tell us that synergy is an important thing, than yes, obviously, it is.
What I'm ultimately trying to say is that what truly makes a card how good it is, is the deck that it's in. Regardless of which card, Don't you agree?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
I was already experimenting with it with Mal'Ganis, Dread Infernal and Doomguard.
I was not the sole creator of this archetype since the idea was around since Naxx release. But still... Mal'Ganis prove itself to be a strong card that was actually playable.
Sometimes, you just need to explore a bit. Like teching Deathlord into your Handlock.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
I was already experimenting with it with Mal'Ganis, Dread Infernal and Doomguard.
I was not the sole creator of this archetype since the idea was around since Naxx release. But still... Mal'Ganis prove itself to be a strong card that was actually playable.
Sometimes, you just need to explore a bit. Like teching Deathlord into your Handlock.
Exactly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
I was already experimenting with it with Mal'Ganis, Dread Infernal and Doomguard.
I was not the sole creator of this archetype since the idea was around since Naxx release. But still... Mal'Ganis prove itself to be a strong card that was actually playable.
Sometimes, you just need to explore a bit. Like teching Deathlord into your Handlock.
Exactly.
As by now, I'm starting to experiment different decklist from the standard Handlock, trying to come up with a better one then what I'm used. So far this season I've got some good results with a Handlock that contain 21 different cards. Many one of instead of two makes the more inconsistent but more versatile to different situations. I'm experimenting about the many win conditions of this deck... and it's giving me quite a good amount of thinking. It's been so long since I've not been in such theorycrafting about what could make Handlock more consistent in term of the release of the next expansion since Handlock won't look for much improvement but rather slight benefit from marginal cards of this expansion (mainly why the deck is so strong... it's making use of cards that none other deck can use due to the stalling mechanic it's using to win many of the matchups it's facing).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Did u just quoted a bunch of control decks that run multiple legendaries/epics and said that good cards are not what make these decks what they are?
He talked about synergy from cards that are not overly played.
I believe most of those decks run slusge belchers, ET, and Dr Boom, i.e. good cards.
Again, I'm not saying that good cards don't matter. I'm saying that what makes cards good respectively is the deck that they're in. In other words, any card that's considered bad can be good in the right deck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
Did u just quoted a bunch of control decks that run multiple legendaries/epics and said that good cards are not what make these decks what they are?
He talked about synergy from cards that are not overly played.
I believe most of those decks run slusge belchers, ET, and Dr Boom, i.e. good cards.
I'll quote myself since you did not get the point : He talked about synergy from cards that are not overly played.
Synergy cards are not the only cards you put into a deck, you still need cards that are generally good across the board. So yes, there is a need for good cards from TGT.
Did u just quoted a bunch of control decks that run multiple legendaries/epics and said that good cards are not what make these decks what they are?
He talked about synergy from cards that are not overly played.
I believe most of those decks run slusge belchers, ET, and Dr Boom, i.e. good cards.
Again, I'm not saying that good cards don't matter. I'm saying that what makes cards good respectively is the deck that they're in. In other words, any card that's considered bad can be good in the right deck.
Card is realy bad in itself. But Handlock can use it due o the nature of the deck. A bad card that's borderline OP in the right (and it's a neutral one) deck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Did u just quoted a bunch of control decks that run multiple legendaries/epics and said that good cards are not what make these decks what they are?
He talked about synergy from cards that are not overly played.
I believe most of those decks run slusge belchers, ET, and Dr Boom, i.e. good cards.
I'll quote myself since you did not get the point : He talked about synergy from cards that are not overly played.
Synergy cards are not the only cards you put into a deck, you still need cards that are generally good across the board. So yes, there is a need for good cards from TGT.
Great job at pointing out an evidence. Of course good cards will be played from TGT. That's logic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Did u just quoted a bunch of control decks that run multiple legendaries/epics and said that good cards are not what make these decks what they are?
He talked about synergy from cards that are not overly played.
I believe most of those decks run slusge belchers, ET, and Dr Boom, i.e. good cards.
Again, I'm not saying that good cards don't matter. I'm saying that what makes cards good respectively is the deck that they're in. In other words, any card that's considered bad can be good in the right deck.
And i'm saying that there are two types of good cards. A) cards that are basically good in 90% of situations, eg: belcher, boom, sylvannas etc, B) cards that are only good in specific decks eg: Malygos, Mountain Giant etc.
So, seeing as it is a stretch to judge which TGT cards are the second type, there's nothing wrong with players only looking for the first type of good cards in TGT, at this moment.
It really grinds my gears (family guy reference) when people only look at cards in the completely objective manner of: Playable or Unplayable.
I think this way of seeing cards shows ignorance. Hearthstone is a game that you win by having a few things:
1) Better skills.
2) Better luck.
3) Better deck.
There is no "4) better cards". I know you're probably sitting there in your chair thinking "this guy's an idiot, of course there is a "4) better card" criteria. Well, then allow me to answer you with a few examples:
1) The majordomo mage deck that got to top 100 legend.
2) Malygus Warlock.
3) Deathwing control warrior.
4) Freeze mage.
5) Kolento's combo 1TK deck.
These are just very few examples of decks which people reached legend with, and not all of them run the very best cards in particular. What makes them good is their synergy.
The awesome thing about new cards is that it brings out a whole endless range of decks. Not all the cards have to be, not OP, not very good, not even just good, to be good in certain decks and to get you to legend.
Thanks allot for reading all of this and respectfully let me know if you disagree or do agree!
TLDR: What decides how good ANY card is, is the deck that it's in.
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
You only need a 51% winrate to get to legend. You can get there with any card if you're stupid/psychotic enough to play through it. Your examples mean nothing.
Of course we're going to objectively judge cards because we want to see new things in most of our games. That's not what's going to happen right now.
That's exactly what people said when all the cards in the decks I mentioned came out. And look what fits the accomplished.
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
Synergy obviously matters, but the independent strength of each card also matters. Even the most combo-heavy decks have to run at least some cards that are just independently strong in order to be successful. There is a reason that majordomo deck ran Dr. Boom instead of War Golem.
You misplaced my words. I never said that decks should purely rely on synergy. I said that cards that used to be considered "terrible", as you say, ended up being, through synergy with the deck, the best card in the deck, if not the winning condition.
Combo decks are great, but not the only example for it.
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
I agree with you. All I'm trying to say is that people shouldn't rule out any card before it is confirmed that the card is "unplayable" in ladder.
Majordomo is classic example.
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
What I'm ultimately trying to say is that what truly makes a card how good it is, is the deck that it's in. Regardless of which card, Don't you agree?
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
Remember when DemonHandlock wasn't a thing.
I was already experimenting with it with Mal'Ganis, Dread Infernal and Doomguard.
I was not the sole creator of this archetype since the idea was around since Naxx release. But still... Mal'Ganis prove itself to be a strong card that was actually playable.
Sometimes, you just need to explore a bit. Like teching Deathlord into your Handlock.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Exactly.
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
As by now, I'm starting to experiment different decklist from the standard Handlock, trying to come up with a better one then what I'm used. So far this season I've got some good results with a Handlock that contain 21 different cards. Many one of instead of two makes the more inconsistent but more versatile to different situations. I'm experimenting about the many win conditions of this deck... and it's giving me quite a good amount of thinking. It's been so long since I've not been in such theorycrafting about what could make Handlock more consistent in term of the release of the next expansion since Handlock won't look for much improvement but rather slight benefit from marginal cards of this expansion (mainly why the deck is so strong... it's making use of cards that none other deck can use due to the stalling mechanic it's using to win many of the matchups it's facing).
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Did u just quoted a bunch of control decks that run multiple legendaries/epics and said that good cards are not what make these decks what they are?
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
He talked about synergy from cards that are not overly played.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
I believe most of those decks run slusge belchers, ET, and Dr Boom, i.e. good cards.
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
I'll quote myself since you did not get the point : He talked about synergy from cards that are not overly played.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Again, I'm not saying that good cards don't matter. I'm saying that what makes cards good respectively is the deck that they're in. In other words, any card that's considered bad can be good in the right deck.
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
Synergy cards are not the only cards you put into a deck, you still need cards that are generally good across the board. So yes, there is a need for good cards from TGT.
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
If you want an example : Mountain Giant
Card is realy bad in itself. But Handlock can use it due o the nature of the deck. A bad card that's borderline OP in the right (and it's a neutral one) deck.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Great job at pointing out an evidence. Of course good cards will be played from TGT. That's logic.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
And i'm saying that there are two types of good cards. A) cards that are basically good in 90% of situations, eg: belcher, boom, sylvannas etc, B) cards that are only good in specific decks eg: Malygos, Mountain Giant etc.
So, seeing as it is a stretch to judge which TGT cards are the second type, there's nothing wrong with players only looking for the first type of good cards in TGT, at this moment.
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
yea heres the thing. ive tried to make my own new crazy decks that i think will work. and they dont. so i just play normally and win.