@kovachut lol wait a second... is rexxar that bad? I never knew that
Rexxar isn't bad as a standalone card... But most of the time he is played in "i am losing really badly, need to do something" situation. And then zombeasts don't always save you if you are already behind by a lot... If you are winning anyway you don't need Rexxar, because SMOrc hero power is better in those situations...
2) Rexxar DK is a powerful standalone card, but he just fits a control deck better, but hunter doesn't have the needed support for a such arch-type. The DK is good - he provides card generation, an AoE effect and a pinch of health - but when the rest of the deck is not really suited for a slow game-strategy, then you can see why this win-rate anomaly occurs. The class would profit more from cards, which enable them to continue the aggression. Rexxar does that, but you won't be able to end the game by turn 6,7 or 8, but rather much, much later on. Until then you also give your opponent enough time to react. This is the second reason why the DK lowers the win-rate of the deck, when played - hunter just needs some tools to end the game RIGHT NOW. It's just the nature of this class.
Inb4 I personally think, that the purpose of Rexxar's inclusion in any mid-range deck is only to have a last resort card - meaning, when everything falls apart (when you lose your board), that you can still stay in the game.
I don't recall losing a game once I cast Valeera with a Mill Rogue.
It is that strong.
Of course you have to get there, but it is the case with a lot of strong end-game cards in the meta.
If you get there then not playing vs aggro or the aggro player have terrible draw.
Mill rogue is a hard counter for any control deck, with luck any combo deck too, with Valeera or not.
Agree this is the kind of card make the deck a lot more consistent because need a lot of redundancy (bounce, make both players draw, etc...) and fix the problem of you milling yourself, but still think the card can cost 8 manas...
For some reason, players kling on to Kingsbane and Valeera the Hollow, even though the numbers show terrible winrates. Maybe the cards don't have to be better to be played, so why bother making them better?
Or are the cards so well design that people remember wins and forget losses, or simply just don't care if they are not climbing just to play the decks? Many are fooling themselves into believing the cards are strong for sure!
For some reason, players kling on to Kingsbane and Valeera the Hollow, even though the numbers show terrible winrates. Maybe the cards don't have to be better to be played, so why bother making them better?
Or are the cards so well design that people remember wins and forget losses, or simply just don't care if they are not climbing just to play the decks? Many are fooling themselves into believing the cards are strong for sure!
The cards themselves can be strong while the decks they fit into currently are not.
For some reason, players kling on to Kingsbane and Valeera the Hollow, even though the numbers show terrible winrates. Maybe the cards don't have to be better to be played, so why bother making them better?
Or are the cards so well design that people remember wins and forget losses, or simply just don't care if they are not climbing just to play the decks? Many are fooling themselves into believing the cards are strong for sure!
The cards themselves can be strong while the decks they fit into currently are not.
But that's proving the card is bad. If a card is strong but never has a deck to play it in then it means it isn't strong. In addition, facts are facts, using her causes you to lose more than win. It's a fact supported by data not a opinion. In theory yes it's good but it isn't in practice and will moat likely never see a successful win rate.
For some reason, players kling on to Kingsbane and Valeera the Hollow, even though the numbers show terrible winrates. Maybe the cards don't have to be better to be played, so why bother making them better?
Or are the cards so well design that people remember wins and forget losses, or simply just don't care if they are not climbing just to play the decks? Many are fooling themselves into believing the cards are strong for sure!
The cards themselves can be strong while the decks they fit into currently are not.
But that's proving the card is bad. If a card is strong but never has a deck to play it in then it means it isn't strong. In addition, facts are facts, using her causes you to lose more than win. It's a fact supported by data not a opinion. In theory yes it's good but it isn't in practice and will moat likely never see a successful win rate.
No it doesn’t prove anything. Cards can be strong but if the meta doesn’t suit the cards, then they will resolve in poor win-rates.
Sometimes the second best deck is useless.
Let us see after rotation if Veleera DK still has below 50 % win-rate.
Agree. Right now I'm thinking of Raza and, mainly, Kazakus in Un'Goro. A Reno-type deck, whose main components rotated out, proved to be a lot weaker in standard after the rotation. But as KoFT was introduced those "unpopular" cards proved to be more helpful than some can think.
Agree. Right now I'm thinking of Raza and, mainly, Kazakus in Un'Goro. A Reno-type deck, whose main components rotated out, proved to be a lot weaker in standard after the rotation. But as KoFT was introduced those "unpopular" cards proved to be more helpful than some can think.
Exactly. When Reno came out it proved very bad. Than later it got better even though the card was never changed.
Whwn Raza the Chained came out it was bad then later it got better as Shadowreaper Anduin came out.
For some reason, players kling on to Kingsbane and Valeera the Hollow, even though the numbers show terrible winrates. Maybe the cards don't have to be better to be played, so why bother making them better?
Or are the cards so well design that people remember wins and forget losses, or simply just don't care if they are not climbing just to play the decks? Many are fooling themselves into believing the cards are strong for sure!
The cards themselves can be strong while the decks they fit into currently are not.
But that's proving the card is bad. If a card is strong but never has a deck to play it in then it means it isn't strong. In addition, facts are facts, using her causes you to lose more than win. It's a fact supported by data not a opinion. In theory yes it's good but it isn't in practice and will moat likely never see a successful win rate.
You're right, facts are facts, and the fact is you are completely wrong.. Playing Valeera vastly improves winrate in many decks compared to not playing it (fact). Also, deck strength has absolutely nothing to do with how strong a particular cards is. (fact).
Agree this is the kind of card make the deck a lot more consistent because need a lot of redundancy (bounce, make both players draw, etc...) and fix the problem of you milling yourself, but still think the card can cost 8 manas...
The problem I have with the OP is that he refuses to budge from his standpoint even after countless of reasons given by many posters. Be open minded and stop being so stubborn. Have you even played the card before you made this so called judgement?
Have you even played the card before you made this so called judgement?
Many, many times, only a simple comparison is needed to know the DK's are unbalanced.
Valeera for 9 manas give you one turn of survive, what is not a big deal because you spend your entire 9 manas turn playing the DK making 0 impact in the board, and need a least 4 turns of using the new hero power to get the value of Sprint, a 7 manas card.
Compare this with warlock, cost only 1 mana more, give a hero power extremely powerful for offense and defense and in many cases 30/39 board status in taunt and charge demons.
Or DK warlock is too much powerful and need to be extremely nerfed or the rogue DK is insanely overcosted.
Say both are balanced is deny the obvious facts and reasons what you acuse me of doing.
Valeera the Hollow has the highest played win rate in this entire Kingbane deck from hs replay and it even has a positive win rate to keep it off the mulligan. You cant say that of many 9 mana cards.
Kingsbane Mill Rogue gets to turn 9 most of the time - they just don't have the card draw of Miracle to guarantee Valeera in hand ^^
Mill rogue is a polarized deck, lose miserably vs any agressive deck and win easily vs any slow deck, with Valeera or not, to make things worse Valeera is a dead card in your hand vs your bad matchs and awesome vs the others.
Many, many times, only a simple comparison is needed to know the DK's are unbalanced.
Valeera for 9 manas give you one turn of survive, what is not a big deal because you spend your entire 9 manas turn playing the DK making 0 impact in the board, and need a least 4 turns of using the new hero power to get the value of Sprint, a 7 manas card.
This is utterly nonsensical. You’re just asserting something false (i.e., that DK Valeera is “insanely overcosted”) and then giving a borderline incoherent evaluation of DK Valeera’s impact. Card draw and card generation are obviously not equivalent. With the DK hero power, you get the opportunity to play a copy of another card each turn, so in terms of pure value, there is no comparison with Sprint.
Valeera has loads of potential and is simply underwhelming in the current standard meta, but that is no reason to argue that Valeera is overcosted—let alone “insanely overcosted.” Evaluating Valeera, any DK, or really any card for that matter, independent of (actual or potential) synergy with other cards, the current meta, etc., is tremendously misguided and ultimately a waste of time. Consider the question: Is x card good/bad? Despite initial appearances, this is a complex question that involves a variety of other considerations, and the answer can and should always be reevaluated given any change in the meta or introduction of new cards, etc. Just because x card seems bad/overcosted, etc., right now does not entail that it is, as a matter of fact, bad/overcosted, etc., full stop.
I honestly don’t understand why the vast majority of the threads like this one (i.e., “x is so broken/unplayable/overcosted”) garner so many responses. The OP is typically just dogmatically asserting something controversial, or in this case, something false. I wonder what the average age of (semi-)frequent posters is on this site. Given these inane threads, it really seems like this is a children’s card game played by mostly children.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist. ©Trimutius
I don't recall losing a game once I cast Valeera with a Mill Rogue.
It is that strong.
Of course you have to get there, but it is the case with a lot of strong end-game cards in the meta.
For some reason, players kling on to Kingsbane and Valeera the Hollow, even though the numbers show terrible winrates. Maybe the cards don't have to be better to be played, so why bother making them better?
Or are the cards so well design that people remember wins and forget losses, or simply just don't care if they are not climbing just to play the decks? Many are fooling themselves into believing the cards are strong for sure!
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
i mean i dont think we want a mill rogue meta. mill rogue can stay at tier3/4 where it belongs as a fun deck thats somewhat viable
8 mana Valeera DK would just be absolutely busted
The problem I have with the OP is that he refuses to budge from his standpoint even after countless of reasons given by many posters. Be open minded and stop being so stubborn. Have you even played the card before you made this so called judgement?
Valeera the Hollow has the highest played win rate in this entire Kingbane deck from hs replay and it even has a positive win rate to keep it off the mulligan. You cant say that of many 9 mana cards.
Kingsbane Mill Rogue gets to turn 9 most of the time - they just don't have the card draw of Miracle to guarantee Valeera in hand ^^