Hearthpwn

Only played him once in heroic and beat him easily, but only because the AI was absolute trash.

He had 4 1/1 deathrattle minions on the board, and just went face with them each turn. I refused to trade them in, and just built up a big board and raced him to face. He kept just going face for 4 damage then passing the rest of his turn, and I just beat him by having 4 better minions.

It was quite crazy...

Average is 1 in 20, apparently.

Guaranteed is 1 in 40.

So, if you have good luck, you'll get 5+. If you have terrible luck you'll get 2.

From my own experience, you should expect no less than 3.

Quote from Jakorindo >>

I think that Dr. Morrigan won't be great with what we have in standard atm, but the possibility for more Big Warlock cards to come is there. It could very well lead to something similar to cube warlock in the future. At 6 mana it is not overly different to possessed lackey.

 Yes, maybe in future meta's we'll see her interaction being useful. At current, it's a bit of a struggle to think of a competitive deck.

I'll have fun trying, nonetheless, however.

So, when boomsday dropped, as a F2P player I was excited for my initial free legendary... And then up came Dr. Morrigan. Even then, before any meta had been established, I knew it was gonna be a dead card, and it was.

(To add salt into the wound, my first legendary in packs was Harbinger Celestia, but I digress)

However, it would now appear the the doctor has been given quite a generous buff, by having the cost reduced by 2 mana, down from 8 to 6. Only one other card has their cost reduced by as much as 2!

So, my question is, do you think Dr Morrigan will now be seen on ladder? On the one hand, there is the potential for a "big Warlock" type deck with this in, allowing you to cheat out some massive minions for 6 (or maybe less) mana. And the 5/5 stats on a 6 mana minion isn't too bad.
On the other hand, 6 mana is still quite expensive, and some of the larger, standard Warlock Minions have battlecries that are pretty much their whole thing. (Think Lord Jaraxxus for example) . Or don't even cost that much more than Morrigan herself. (I.e. Archvillain Rafaam or the potential for Jumbo Imp)

Personally, I'd love for it to be seen far more frequently, but doubt even cards like Deathwing can help pull it off. My vote would be "No"...

Quote from GentilleMouche >>

Quote from Claeshj >>

Quote from GentilleMouche >>

Quote from Lyconik >>

Teching Hungry Crab is so bad actually, you increase your winrate against Murloc Shaman for a few %, but you decrease every other matchup also, so in the end, unless you met like 70% murloc deck, you're going to hurt your overall winrate.

 That is the thing. He did see 70% shamans. Until he made the change. 

He made the correct change and the game punished him for it with very simple rules. There's not conspiracy... That's how a matchmaking works (in every online game with matchmaking), it's not just trying to find you the closest fastest opponent.

Have you not noticed that tier 1 decks and absolute meme decks have trouble finding an opponent quickly sometimes? Well that's just another rule, if possible the matchmaking won't put you against someone that cannot win or cannot lose. Playing odd paladin in Wild sometimes takes me a full minute to find an opponent, switching to a regular tier 2-3 deck and it happens instantly, at the same time of the day of course. 

But yeah, let's just scream tinfoil hat, make fun of it, blizzard conspiracy, lololol. Tinfoil hat team has no argument to prove their point, other than "did you make calculations ? Because I will not do it, you're so wrong lol" 

People are actually, genuinely idiotic to think the matchmaking does not have rules based on cards and decks that are being played. 

 You are very convincing! 

Just like those flat earth people on Tv, where you genuinely believe they are that paranoid/delusional, and not just pretending. 

You put so much effort into writing nonesense, it’s actually quite impressive. 

You keep saying you have proof, but that this “proof” is really just consistent confirmation bias. Just because you continue to feel this way, does not make it so. And no one will ever take your “I remember this happening over and over, so it must be true, even though I never tracked it” as any kind of proof, sorry.

 What is nonsense about what I said? Can you tell me why it's non sense? Just tell me, don't prove me. I never said me remembering something was some kind of proof, I know my English is bad but I didn't say anything like that.

The comparison with flat earth people really hurts me as an astronomy lover, it's funny how the insults are consistently on one side of the discussion and I still haven't gotten any kind of counter argument regarding my claims, only that it is "nonsense" and my proof isn't really a proof, which is exactly why I refused to provide it, because it will indeed not be considered a scientifically serious proof (rightfully so) , you will say "you just played 200 games, you got unlucky, you cheated the numbers, blablabla, non sense flat earth" and it's also why I said "do it yourself and see" you will never do it, because you don't want to see. It must be because you are right, as it is known with insults and lack of argument or experimentation. You are on the flat earth side in this debate my friend. 

 The problem is that your "proof" aren't forms of proof:

1. Anecdotal evidence - "I have noticed this is the case. I have played games with and without tech and have noticed the difference."

2. Burden of Proof - "You have to do the test for me, and if you don't, then by default I'm correct."

If you want to prove your findings, then you need to do the 200 matches with and without the techs in. Then, you have to document your results and publish them here. Without that, your facts aren't facts. They're just the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist.

Which is why you're compared to a flat-earther. They use the same type of arguments as "proof".

i.e. "I have noticed that the Earth is flat. I have travelled and did not see any evidence that there is any curve whatsoever" and "You should believe me until you have gone up into space and see the curve with your own eyes. If you don't do that, by default I am correct"

Wow, am I the only one who read this thread as just a bit of fun? You can't take what OP says so seriously. It's obviously extremely tongue-in-cheek, yet became an "Um, honey, y'know, akshully..."  thread immediately.

So, at the risk of being flamed, I'm just gonna join in on what I believe the initial idea for the thread was about:

Over-emoting: When I start a game and get a "Hello", I think they are polite opponent. When I start a game and get "My magic will tear you apart" I immediately think "Is this guy seriously trying to tilt me already, at turn 1?" Then, they proceed with their "Wow"s and "Well Played"s, which makes me think "Yeah, they're trying to put me off my game already!". Instantly makes me squelch and think they're gonna be bad players.

Playing THE tier 1 deck in casual: Bit of a double edged sword here, cos on the one hand, they might just be playing this deck in casual to guarantee the daily quest completion, but on the other hand, they may just not be good enough to cut it in ranked even with the best deck out there! I tend to assume the latter!

Coining out hero power turn 1: Not always a bad play necessarily, but when this happens, I can't help but think this is a massive mistake!

Aggro players who never trade: Yes, I'm jumping on the aggro bandwagon, but with a certified caveat. I play all kinds of deck, but tbh, prefer control. So, when I have a 2/3 turn play in mind, and they don't trade off my dangerous minion (Lets say something like a Antonidas or Malygos, for the sake of an OTT example), then I can't help but think they don't know what they're doing...

Similarly, control players who over-trade: Sure, a lot of control decks rely on removing the board all the time to win, but sometimes players are over-cautious. Especially against OTK or warrior decks. Sometimes control players need to know when they're out-controlled and need to amend their gameplan. I see this happen a lot and always think my opponent only has a plan A and nothing else.

Barnes needs to be buffed. 4 mana 3/4? No thanks!

Well, there are a lot of factors to make him work.

Was your board empty? Was your hand empty? Did Mecha'Thun die? Was he silenced?

A screenprint would help answer these, if you have one?

/thread

It's auto-included because it's versatile. Any class can use it, it's an excellent anti-aggro tool, it heals, has major mech synergy, and can control the board. It can be used in aggro decks, control decks, midrange decks. Anything really, even some aggro decks. And it's stats aren't too big for the mana cost. Personally, I think it's balanced to precision... Perfection!

And versatility does not mean OP. It means it's well designed.

Can't say I've ever done that, but I've done equally stupid things before.

Just this morning I targeted the wrong minion with a spell, and it ended up costing me the game. I wasn't paying enough attention and rushed it. It's a lesson I won't forget (for the next couple of days...)

No Kalecgos and only 1 Arcane Keysmith any recommendations for substitutes, please? Or are they necessary?

I'm thinking Archmage Antonidas and Khadgar?

Any chance you can explain how to set Mecha'Thun off?

I assume it's something like Galvanizer -> Galvanizer ->Seance -> Galvanizer -> [/card]Mecha'thun[/card] -> Shadow Word: Death?

Cos that's a lot of setup. Am I missing something, or is it more effective than I'm anticipating?

I've been playing since beta and have never had 2 legendaries in the same pack. I've never had legendaries in consecutive packs. The best I ever got was a legendary and an epic in one pack.

I'm not envious. I just want two legendaries in a pack!

Which means I just want what you've got.

OK, I'm a little envious.

"I found a glitch and have a video and screenshot of it."

"Did you have a weapon equipped?"

"No, and suddenly I don't have a video or screenshot anymore and will stop replying to the thread."