We all know the current meta sucks ass. There are billions of complaints about various decks, and they are justified - the main problem with the meta is pretty simple. Nothing feels good to play against... or does it?
We have complaints about Mage and Incanter's Flow deciding games on turn 2. We have tons of threads about broken Paladin cards, and how the nerfs weren't enough. We have multiple Priest and Warlock rants, that they don't let you play the game and remove your cards. We have complaints about the ridiculous draw of Rogue and Demon Hunter. But there is one deck I've never seen people complain about - Rush Warrior.
But why exactly? The deck is a definite tier 1 and has an amazing matchup spread, only being unfavored against Warlock and Priest. But there is a very important aspect of the deck - well, its defining keyword, Rush. The main focus of the deck is fighting for the board, and that is something we see less and less often in today's Hearthstone. Also, the deck doesn't rely on swing turns/mana cheat - with Conditioning and Troublemaker being the closest offenders, but that's nowhere near the level of for example Skull of Gul'dan or Glowfly Swarm. And even if you're playing against Rush Warrior and you're unfavored, you at least feel like your plays matter, which sometimes can't be said facing a Priest with 7 Soul Mirrors.
This brings up two very important things. The first is that it's not 100% about the power level of the deck when it's hated by the community - Rush Warrior is almost as powerful as Paladin, yet nobody seems to complain. The second thing is that board-based decks seem to be the most fun to play against for the community, and that's where the game should head to be successful in the future.
The common denominator of all the 'hated' decks you mentioned was heavy proactive/burn or reactive/defensive spell involvement. Decks which are heavy in those regards never feel good to play against because it doesn't feel like a "fair fight". Rush Warrior can deal a ton of damage but there isn't any 'cheap' burn except for Alex in the late game and in the turns leading up, it's an extremely straight forward deck which allows for back and forth/engaging game play.
It's entertaining because the matchups are very 'meat and potatoes' where both players say, "I'm gonna put my best minions on the board and you're gonna put your best minions on the board so let's fight it out to see who comes out on top".
Rush warrior might be strong but it feels fair because it is very board based. This is the best direction for a great meta. Mages can do tons of damage to your face when you couldnt do anything about it and palladin has an insane early game which some classes have a difficult time dealing with. Specially when paladin can buff their minions and then go even harder face.
And to be fair rush warrior isnt THAT strong. It just counters the meta mainly paladin because warrior can protect the board so paladin cant be as aggresive. But priest for example is a harder matchup because priest doesnt care about board they just stall till you die of boredom.
“because priest doesnt care about board they just stall till you die of boredom”. That why conceed when they are taking to long no one has time for that.
I might be around 50% win/lose ratio against rush warrior. I never felt too bad when losing (even when I really didn't have a chance), and I never felt like I had to cheese to beat them.
Honestly, I don't see that much of a difference between Paladin decks and Rush Warrior in that regard. (I have played both by the way.) Both fight for board and are quite interactive. One could even argue that a deck full of rush minions is less interactive than one that relies on buffs.
Paladin undoubtedly had and maybe still has some overpowered cards going into this expansion, but for me at least, it never created an unfun experience neither playing with nor against it (with the exception of a snowballing early Crabrider, which fortunately has been fixed). So I can't quite understand the outrage against it, nor why Rush Warrior would be a "savior".
I think Paladin would be completely Ok and fair if it wasn't for their crazy snowbally early game. Usually, if me and my opponent are more or less even by turn 5-6 (completely subjective, I know, but you know what I mean), I find paladin games are OK, fun, and balanced for the rest of the matches.
Honestly, I don't see that much of a difference between Paladin decks and Rush Warrior in that regard. (I have played both by the way.) Both fight for board and are quite interactive. One could even argue that a deck full of rush minions is less interactive than one that relies on buffs.
Paladin undoubtedly had and maybe still has some overpowered cards going into this expansion, but for me at least, it never created an unfun experience neither playing with nor against it (with the exception of a snowballing early Crabrider, which fortunately has been fixed). So I can't quite understand the outrage against it, nor why Rush Warrior would be a "savior".
That's weird Amaranthus because i see an abysmal difference between both in powerlevel, it's not even comparable imo.
Priest currently is cancer. Long ass games and infinite value they get. I don't mind paladin or warrior because it's more interactive/trade/board related. Priest is just cheating shit out constantly "discovering" 1000 cards and constant board clears while you fall asleep
We all know the current meta sucks ass. There are billions of complaints about various decks, and they are justified - the main problem with the meta is pretty simple. Nothing feels good to play against... or does it?
We have complaints about Mage and Incanter's Flow deciding games on turn 2. We have tons of threads about broken Paladin cards, and how the nerfs weren't enough. We have multiple Priest and Warlock rants, that they don't let you play the game and remove your cards. We have complaints about the ridiculous draw of Rogue and Demon Hunter. But there is one deck I've never seen people complain about - Rush Warrior.
But why exactly? The deck is a definite tier 1 and has an amazing matchup spread, only being unfavored against Warlock and Priest. But there is a very important aspect of the deck - well, its defining keyword, Rush. The main focus of the deck is fighting for the board, and that is something we see less and less often in today's Hearthstone. Also, the deck doesn't rely on swing turns/mana cheat - with Conditioning and Troublemaker being the closest offenders, but that's nowhere near the level of for example Skull of Gul'dan or Glowfly Swarm. And even if you're playing against Rush Warrior and you're unfavored, you at least feel like your plays matter, which sometimes can't be said facing a Priest with 7 Soul Mirrors.
This brings up two very important things. The first is that it's not 100% about the power level of the deck when it's hated by the community - Rush Warrior is almost as powerful as Paladin, yet nobody seems to complain. The second thing is that board-based decks seem to be the most fun to play against for the community, and that's where the game should head to be successful in the future.
Because you dont play 80% of games against it just as happens with pala and mage and because its not an unfair deck.
Paladin can win you in early, mid and late without even trying hard and mage has insane highroll with the discount.
Priest has been always the same and warlock is completely trash
The common denominator of all the 'hated' decks you mentioned was heavy proactive/burn or reactive/defensive spell involvement. Decks which are heavy in those regards never feel good to play against because it doesn't feel like a "fair fight". Rush Warrior can deal a ton of damage but there isn't any 'cheap' burn except for Alex in the late game and in the turns leading up, it's an extremely straight forward deck which allows for back and forth/engaging game play.
It's entertaining because the matchups are very 'meat and potatoes' where both players say, "I'm gonna put my best minions on the board and you're gonna put your best minions on the board so let's fight it out to see who comes out on top".
Rush warrior might be strong but it feels fair because it is very board based. This is the best direction for a great meta. Mages can do tons of damage to your face when you couldnt do anything about it and palladin has an insane early game which some classes have a difficult time dealing with. Specially when paladin can buff their minions and then go even harder face.
And to be fair rush warrior isnt THAT strong. It just counters the meta mainly paladin because warrior can protect the board so paladin cant be as aggresive. But priest for example is a harder matchup because priest doesnt care about board they just stall till you die of boredom.
No surprise, midrange board decks are my favorite decks to play exactly because they don't feel polarizing.
You always feel like you have a chance, with it or against it.
Ultra aggro and heavy control makes me not want to play the game, polarizing cards like the 1 mana 3 dmg buff from pally and hysteria are disgusting
“because priest doesnt care about board they just stall till you die of boredom”. That why conceed when they are taking to long no one has time for that.
Totally agree!
I might be around 50% win/lose ratio against rush warrior. I never felt too bad when losing (even when I really didn't have a chance), and I never felt like I had to cheese to beat them.
Honestly, I don't see that much of a difference between Paladin decks and Rush Warrior in that regard. (I have played both by the way.) Both fight for board and are quite interactive. One could even argue that a deck full of rush minions is less interactive than one that relies on buffs.
Paladin undoubtedly had and maybe still has some overpowered cards going into this expansion, but for me at least, it never created an unfun experience neither playing with nor against it (with the exception of a snowballing early Crabrider, which fortunately has been fixed). So I can't quite understand the outrage against it, nor why Rush Warrior would be a "savior".
Ceterum censeo classum magi esse delendam.
I think Paladin would be completely Ok and fair if it wasn't for their crazy snowbally early game. Usually, if me and my opponent are more or less even by turn 5-6 (completely subjective, I know, but you know what I mean), I find paladin games are OK, fun, and balanced for the rest of the matches.
That's weird Amaranthus because i see an abysmal difference between both in powerlevel, it's not even comparable imo.
Priest currently is cancer. Long ass games and infinite value they get. I don't mind paladin or warrior because it's more interactive/trade/board related. Priest is just cheating shit out constantly "discovering" 1000 cards and constant board clears while you fall asleep
any list?
All the viable decks have something broken about them. But at least Rush Warrior is board based.
All the decks in this meta make many past broken decks like "Odd Paladin" look like a joke.
Just to remind everyone that there is people that get payed to balance the game and design cards.