Hearthpwn

I play mostly CW, but have dipped my toes with PW to learn the matchup from the other side and to compare them.

PW won't teach you much about warrior in general, the playstyle is completely different from other warrior decks. It'll teach you how to better fight aggro yourself, and it'll teach you to recognize good gambles.

If climbing ladder is important to you, PW is a very good deck for that.

Though I did actually pick up one trick from PW, there are a few opponent decks where gunning for a few face nudges (even with war-axe if need be ) can make later rounds much easier.

Well, I don't watch tournaments anymore... HS has never been a big staple of competitive gaming, but recent design developments have made tournaments plain silly and completely pointless. They could just flip the first 6 cards and decide who wins based on that in 95% of the matches (this trend is worse in tourneys than ladder, so not taking shots at ladder with this).

Arena has become very boring to watch due to the limited cardpool and slanted card selection towards Un'goro, but Amaz at least can liven it up (I know he grates on many people, but I find him enjoyable in small doses). 

And too many upcoming streamers just try go for silly meme-stuff,  engage in drama or are just plain rude. I'll just stick to ThijsNL and Savjz.

But yeah in general, watching HS streams have become less interesting.

Black knight is more for mid-range / tempo decks which benefit from a nice swig in the midgame (I'm not saying it is currently good at that, but that is what it does best).

It has no use in aggro decks, you don't need the swing... you just want to push past that taunt. An owl or spellbreaker will do just as well, but even those should largely be unnecessary... pw has plenty of dmg and is good all-round, teching just weakens it vs the field most of the time.

I'd say you countered eachother's counterspell, there is no conflict between the two statements.

You don't really need either for a control based deck. Yogg is a last-ditch defense, best for spell-based combo decks and TBK is best for a tempo-swing which control decks rarely need much of, and even when they do... they amount of times it is useful is often slim and an all-round good card is typically better.

If you are often finding yourself lacking answers in control decks but rarely fatiguing, you should add card draw. If you often lack late-game answers but also tend to fatigue, you often simply need a bit more threats (your opponent being too easily able to pressure you).

I recently returned to HS after a hiatus and played down from 25, and I faced quite a few "fresh" players (or at least players with fresh collections).

The difference in power was enormous. Obviously the difference has always been big (like in most games of this type), but even against players with a relatively reasonable deck construction and who didn't make any glaring mistakes it felt like it was almost impossible to lose.

I don't think I have seen the difference this big before.

Hitting only minions would make it better, not worse. It would also polarize the deck needlessly. 

It's not unbalanced in the slightest either, seems you're just judging it based on a few games.

VR is the best format for horror no doubt, even games that would be mediocre at best on the screen become terrifying.

Barring that, Amnesia TDS is (to me) the best horror game to date. Alien Isolation was very good as well.

But I guess you have played both of those if you are a buff.

Quote from Nicholasjh >>

Quote from Joseph_Turok >>

Without prior knowledge , you'll feel relatively lost. This was strictly fan service which to a degree I appreciated , but also felt like some of the scenes didn't further the story and were purely filler. It was advertised as being about both sides , but it was definitely more human / alliance which is sad because the orcs felt more human. Weird cast choices aside it's an enjoyable popcorn flick with some pacing issues. 

 I beg to differ, I watched it without prior knowledge and it was quite clear.

It ain't a very good deck, but it's not a healthy one. I like to compare it to freeze mage, which is a deck I enjoy both playing and playing against... like freeze mage it's alot about your own gameplan, but unlike freeze mage it is almost impossible to tech against (like versus freeze a zoo deck could go anti-secret or a control deck could include rag or whatnot). You're either playing the type of deck it crushes or the type of deck it gets demolished by.

That is a tell-tale sign the deck doesn't fit the game design. One or two polarized matchups wouldn't be that bad (it could just be due to stats not lining up), but only polarized matchups means something is off.

I liked it. It was simple, to the point and not pretentious. Didn't try to be anything it wasn't.

It seems very light on threats and value from my perspective, I'd rather do an N'zoth package.

I don't think eater of secrets is that useful in CW, usually armorsmiths are just as good (poly and mirror ent being the only problematic ones really) and they're decent versus more decks.

The meta is decent but too strictly defined. You have very defined powerhouse cards and a very low overall card count in standard, and add to that that the matchups are too polarized - too many 70/30s and too few 60/40s. Basically it adds up to "buy yourself this, and then we'll let you win". It's a very prevalent trend and it is largely class-based, probably to induce more buys.

(And no, that is not a whine because I don't have the cards, my collection is completely fine)

But I'm glad the meta is a bit slower and requires more thinking. It is definitely better now than it was before Un'Goro.

If it was a fun game with interesting decks, then yeah. Those invites are usually pretty friendly.

I dislike murlocs (regardless if it is in a meta where they are "good" or "bad"), so I prefer the one without them.

I don't know why I don't like them, they just irk me. I think it is the art design of the cards more than the effects.