My two cents. Prince Malchezaar is an interesting card, it allows an extreme fatigue strategy similar to the one we saw right before the introduction of standard format with Removal Warrior. It's true that you always want your deck to be thin in a card game, but it's also true that in HS control vs control matchups often end in fatigue. The trick is building your deck in a way that allows you to survive aggro just like you do with the classic CW, but with 5 more cards plus Elise to dominate fatigue. So you just take out 5 mid/late game legendaries (Sylvanas, Ragnaros, Grom and such) that will be replaced, although randomly, by the Prince, and put in 5 more removal tools to balance it out. It's as simple as that, but I'm testing a deck like this and I'm afraid it doesn't work any better than a classic CW. I guess the reason is this: it's not about the sheer number of removal options you have, it's about them being efficient. RIght now, very few of them are. You still need to draw that turn 1 Fiery War Axe, that timely Brawl or Execute, and that's where Prince is gonna hurt you 'cause if you're having a dead turn midgame, you'd prefer to drop a Sylvanas that will win you the brawl the following turn, a Grom to clear a minion or a Rag to put pressure, instead you're stuck with Boogeymonster.
I'll try the same strategy with more taunt minions, but we're lacking Deathlord and Sludge Belcher in that department. Soggoth is very efficient (and underrated IMHO), I already run him but he comes very late. I guess in Wild the deck should fare better, as some of you have suggested, with the aforementioned cards.
I'm gonna try Prince in Fatigue Priest and maybe Paladin too, healing and AoEs could be better suited to this particular gameplan. Priest could run up to six of them, even more if you count Pyromancer, but then again, you miss the most efficient one in Lightbomb.
I don't think the card is gonna be that good in Renolock. Sure it fits the theme, but you're already winning late game with Jaraxxus. Spamming 6/6s for two mana is better than drawing 5 more cards. Handlock has always been perfectly fine hitting fatigue first in control matchups due to life tap, 'cause Jaraxxus is always there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is OP.
Please Blizzard nerf Life.
Life banned from standard format confirmed. Indirect Death buff.
No, it's you who don't understand. You constantly talk about late game. There is no late-game! We don't have a control meta. Games are decided by turn 10. Stop talking as if you played only Renolock vs CW match-ups. Don't you understand that out of 10 games, 6 will be vs Aggro Shaman? And what you want vs Aggro Shaman? 5 shitty legendaries (wow, I have strong late game, so bad I'm dead, but at least I win every control match-up) or Reno at turn 6? Once again, time to wake up, if you play mainly vs friends and you have a deal to use only controls, then sure, you are a god with malchezaar. But other players play real hearthstone and they want as consistent deck as possible.
And I don't need any so called pro to tell me which card is bad. Malchezaar is bad, because I can do basic math. I want a 30 cards deck, not 35. I want to draw good cards, not shitty ones. And if I wanted to have 5 more legendaries in the deck, I would put them there. End of the story.
Alright, I'll rephrase it.
Malchezaar's effect happens after the mulligan. If your deck is more removal and clears and taunts and heals because you're running less late game because of Malchezaar, you'll more likely get removal or clears or taunts or heals in your starting hand than something like a Ysera. That's pretty powerful. It also means that you can fit in more card draw than you otherwise might be comfortable with, meaning you can play removal more willingly where you might otherwise leave a minion on the board a turn or two longer to board clear it with other decks, essentially giving you health.
Yes, more cards is typically worse than less, but 30-35 cards, again, is considered very few in your typical card game anyway, and Hearthstone has plenty of cards to cycle for draw in almost every class. That said, he's a card that I would only consider running in very specific decks anyway, out of the 18 decks I have right now only one runs Malchezaar, and it went 5-0 before I took a break.
P.S. Putting something like "end of the story" after your point doesn't add to your point, it verifies that you're not interested in actually discussing a topic and that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. My opinion still stands, thank you very much.
This is a different game than Yu-Gi-Oh, keep in mind. Yes, you wouldn't need more cycle if you didn't run Malchezaar, but cylce is always good, it's just that too much can screw you over against control. With Malchezaar, you can tech your deck to remove more stuff quicker (it makes your mulligans more consistent when you build your deck around Malch), meaning you can, in theory, do better against aggro.
Now, Hearthstone is very different than most other card games. I must admit that a card like Malchezaar can be strictly bad and not at all good in other card games, but in Hearthstone, I imagine it can be powerful, strictly through the general nature of most Legendary minions. I have limited experience with the card so far, though, having only played five games, but I did win those five games, so I'm so far inclined to believe it's pretty good, especially because he has impacted the game pretty substantially for me at times.
The reason why something like this can never be "end of the story" is the constant change in Hearthstone's meta. In a few months, we'll have ~150 new cards, while ~200 cards are cycling out. That's a pretty considerably different meta. And it depends strictly on that meta how well Malchezaar will preform--playing him in Wild can actually fish you some pretty awesome stuff. So no, the opinions of some or many does not solidify the quality of the card; the quality of the card will change until it cycles out itself, but for right now, I personally believe it's pretty good, because I've so far done well with it.
P.S. Haha, rank 20. It was the first day of the season, calm down folks.
Well, rank 20 first day of season means you were around rank 14-15 last season. Just saying, I don't care about ranks personally, everyone's got legend card back nowadays.
I think I was rank 12 and I still ended up in rank 20. -- ofc rank 12 isn't that impressive either but still better than 14-15.
Its a good card against control decks but terrible against other non control decks. It just can literally cost you game because you drew a legendary card instead of the card you needed. Tried him in Renolock where he was terrible and in Ressurect Priest where he was decent.
Haven't tried him out yet, but played against a Warrior who must've been Malchazaars homie... At first he got Elise, which is a pretty good card, but nothing ridiculous, but come late game, Malchazaar gave him a Ysera, Malygos and Chrommagus... I guess Malchazaar felt like he should play Dragon Warrior...
Not sure if that has been said before, but he has another tiny disadvantage : it reveals what kind of deck you're playing to the opponent.
Knowing, even before playing the first card that you're facing a reno/control lock, and not a zoo, may help you take the early decisions right.
It's actually a big advantage.. with warrior having like 5 viable top tier archtypes seeing malchezaar tells you EXACTLY which deck it is which is a big deal o warlock it's too since then you know you can just throw away your AOE removal on the first few minions (the rest of the miniuons should be big/medium) rather than save it.. or just play deathrattles mostly or keep stuff in hand against the 4 aoes renolock runs..
I don't have jaraxxus so I don't know but most people say renolock is extreamly good against control decks aand malchezaar is good only for that match up so.. I dunno.. the thing about renolock is that well.. you want to draw reno and adding 5 more cards make it worse..
This is a different game than Yu-Gi-Oh, keep in mind. Yes, you wouldn't need more cycle if you didn't run Malchezaar, but cylce is always good, it's just that too much can screw you over against control. With Malchezaar, you can tech your deck to remove more stuff quicker (it makes your mulligans more consistent when you build your deck around Malch), meaning you can, in theory, do better against aggro.
Now, Hearthstone is very different than most other card games. I must admit that a card like Malchezaar can be strictly bad and not at all good in other card games, but in Hearthstone, I imagine it can be powerful, strictly through the general nature of most Legendary minions. I have limited experience with the card so far, though, having only played five games, but I did win those five games, so I'm so far inclined to believe it's pretty good, especially because he has impacted the game pretty substantially for me at times.
The reason why something like this can never be "end of the story" is the constant change in Hearthstone's meta. In a few months, we'll have ~150 new cards, while ~200 cards are cycling out. That's a pretty considerably different meta. And it depends strictly on that meta how well Malchezaar will preform--playing him in Wild can actually fish you some pretty awesome stuff. So no, the opinions of some or many does not solidify the quality of the card; the quality of the card will change until it cycles out itself, but for right now, I personally believe it's pretty good, because I've so far done well with it.
It's difficult to say "he's impacted the game pretty substantially", because he doesn't really "do" anything. He adds 5 cards to your deck. You may use those 5 cards to some benefit in a game, but if you hadn't drawn one of them, you would have drawn one of your deck's actual cards, and hopefully that card would have served you just as well or better (otherwise, why run it?).
The only way to positively know that Malchezaar has been of some benefit, is to keep track of draws in a game that goes (or would have gone) to fatigue.
I dunno, I'm currently 8-2 with a Malchezaar deck and most of the time both him and the minion's he's created have done God's work. Only one of the two losses was due to having a bunch of big minions in hand, the other was just coincidental bad tempo, but I didn't draw any big stuff.
I have tried 3 decks with malchezaar, a Mage a mill Rogue and a thief Rogue. My verdict is in a deck that destroys aggro or a deck that does not care about the aggro match-up, he can be great. Obviously if you have a deck that kills zoo and a group shaman and struggles against slower decks, he helps against slower decks, currently that is not useful though. If like my mill Rogue you really just want midrange or control math ups, he can edge out an advantage, because he is not a horrible body and a lot of legendaries are very helpful because of their sheer power. The thing is I don't think the meta works with him, because he requires people to be playing control decks, or at least combo. Neither is super popular right now, but they are more popular than a month ago.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just fill your deck with one drops, that is creative deck design, right?
The best Malchezaar moment I've had was when my opponent used him and also used Barnes. Turn 4 he drops a 1/1 major dojo executus. Pretty easy win when your opponent goes down to 8 health on his own for you.
Having tons of fun with him in Reno Priest in wild. Him + Elise make for interesting games that never play out the same way. I'll look at my hand and notice that I have a Ysera or a Ragnaros the Firelord.
Still love this card, actually crafted a golden version, but...
I seem to be on some sort of streak where I am guaranteed to get a Sir Finley Mrrrglton EVERY. SINGLE. GAME. It seriously has to be going on at least 5 or 6 games now, AND it's the first extra legendary I'm drawing every time. I switched to wild to try and escape him and my first game there I drew him to hahahaha. At least it gets a good laugh out of me every time it happens.
I'm all for people experimenting, but it should be pretty obvious that this card is bad unless the meta settles down into heavy control. A thicker deck is awful for aggro and midrange. A thicker deck for control dealing with heavy pressure and desperately looking for answers is also bad. Additionally, since the card has to obey deckbuilding rules and can't give you dupes, you're guaranteed, at best, cards you already couldn't justify as 1 of 30 - not exactly game-winning stuff.
The only practical use I can see is if you want to play a budget control deck and don't have any of the win condition legendaries. Obviously the consistency would be brutal, but at least you'd have a chance at getting Rag, Sylv, etc.
No, it's you who don't understand. You constantly talk about late game. There is no late-game! We don't have a control meta. Games are decided by turn 10. Stop talking as if you played only Renolock vs CW match-ups. Don't you understand that out of 10 games, 6 will be vs Aggro Shaman? And what you want vs Aggro Shaman? 5 shitty legendaries (wow, I have strong late game, so bad I'm dead, but at least I win every control match-up) or Reno at turn 6? Once again, time to wake up, if you play mainly vs friends and you have a deal to use only controls, then sure, you are a god with malchezaar. But other players play real hearthstone and they want as consistent deck as possible.
And I don't need any so called pro to tell me which card is bad. Malchezaar is bad, because I can do basic math. I want a 30 cards deck, not 35. I want to draw good cards, not shitty ones. And if I wanted to have 5 more legendaries in the deck, I would put them there. End of the story.
Alright, I'll rephrase it.
Malchezaar's effect happens after the mulligan. If your deck is more removal and clears and taunts and heals because you're running less late game because of Malchezaar, you'll more likely get removal or clears or taunts or heals in your starting hand than something like a Ysera. That's pretty powerful. It also means that you can fit in more card draw than you otherwise might be comfortable with, meaning you can play removal more willingly where you might otherwise leave a minion on the board a turn or two longer to board clear it with other decks, essentially giving you health.
Yes, more cards is typically worse than less, but 30-35 cards, again, is considered very few in your typical card game anyway, and Hearthstone has plenty of cards to cycle for draw in almost every class. That said, he's a card that I would only consider running in very specific decks anyway, out of the 18 decks I have right now only one runs Malchezaar, and it went 5-0 before I took a break.
P.S. Putting something like "end of the story" after your point doesn't add to your point, it verifies that you're not interested in actually discussing a topic and that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. My opinion still stands, thank you very much.
End of the story means I'm not interested in repeating myself. There are like 3 threads discussing Malchezaar already and in every single one of them there are people who can't understand simple facts, even though they are explained multiple times.
Mulligan... Yes Malchezaar triggers after it, so it won't negatively affect consistency of your initial hand. But it will negatively affect every single draw throghout the game. So saying that consistency drop isn't that significant is badly false. Same applies to saying 30 cards is small amount. It doesn't matter by any means.
Now cycle. Look at this beautiful yugioh card: http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Upstart_Goblin So simple, right? Play it, draw a card. People used to run 3-of them (max.) in many yugioh decks for years. You know why? Because 3 of those cards in your deck make it being 37 cards deck, not 40. But there still were some idiots without basic understanding of math, who played 43 cards decks (and more), including 3 Upstarts. And they didn't know that if only they didn't play those 3 Upstarts, they'd have normal 40 cards deck without giving opponents 3000 hp throghout the game! So now you say "play more cycle". So basically you are like one of those who played 43 cards with 3 Upstars included. Because you say "hey, if Malchezaar affects your consistency negatively, you can play more cycle!". The thing is I wouldn't need to play more cycle if I didn't put shitty Malchezaar in the first place. You want me to firstly make my deck less consistent and then to try nulify consistency loss by adding different cards. Don't you see it's ridiculous?
1) Make the deck worse.
2) Try to make it less worse.
This is your magic formula. But the problem is if you didn't make it worse initially it would be better now and you wouldn't have to think how to make it less worse.
This is really end of the story. I mean, as I said, I'm tired of both repeating myself and being forced to explain obvious things. I'll agree to disagree here. Making people realize how Hearthstone (and math) works isn't goal of my life and this card for sure doesn't deserve so much of my time. You want to play it? Go for it and have fun. I'm not going to either play it (unless I one day want to have some fun with it) or discuss about it anymore. Cheers.
Your argument in support of your (unproven) pet theory is riddled with logical fallacies. It is your pet theory. Yes, you can do basic math. Congratulations. But the monumentally simple math you're doing in your tilted-towards-your-own-theory stubborn head is currently being destroyed by the facts (results) emerging on ladder with this card. I hate this card, btw, despise what it is introducing into the meta (more lucky RNG winners), but it is what it is. Results don't lie. The only question that matters is does this card take a 49% win rate deck and turn it into a 52% win rate deck? You want a mostly pure 30-card game after mulligan, it seems. I'd like that too. Guess what -- it doesn't exist anymore, and won't until this card cycles out. Frankly you seem butthurt over this card; I'm guessing it trashed a couple of your favorite decks unexpectedly and lost you some ranks, so now you're railing against it with ad-hoc arguments that aren't backed up by real statistics.
No, it's you who don't understand. You constantly talk about late game. There is no late-game! We don't have a control meta. Games are decided by turn 10. Stop talking as if you played only Renolock vs CW match-ups. Don't you understand that out of 10 games, 6 will be vs Aggro Shaman? And what you want vs Aggro Shaman? 5 shitty legendaries (wow, I have strong late game, so bad I'm dead, but at least I win every control match-up) or Reno at turn 6? Once again, time to wake up, if you play mainly vs friends and you have a deal to use only controls, then sure, you are a god with malchezaar. But other players play real hearthstone and they want as consistent deck as possible.
And I don't need any so called pro to tell me which card is bad. Malchezaar is bad, because I can do basic math. I want a 30 cards deck, not 35. I want to draw good cards, not shitty ones. And if I wanted to have 5 more legendaries in the deck, I would put them there. End of the story.
Alright, I'll rephrase it.
Malchezaar's effect happens after the mulligan. If your deck is more removal and clears and taunts and heals because you're running less late game because of Malchezaar, you'll more likely get removal or clears or taunts or heals in your starting hand than something like a Ysera. That's pretty powerful. It also means that you can fit in more card draw than you otherwise might be comfortable with, meaning you can play removal more willingly where you might otherwise leave a minion on the board a turn or two longer to board clear it with other decks, essentially giving you health.
Yes, more cards is typically worse than less, but 30-35 cards, again, is considered very few in your typical card game anyway, and Hearthstone has plenty of cards to cycle for draw in almost every class. That said, he's a card that I would only consider running in very specific decks anyway, out of the 18 decks I have right now only one runs Malchezaar, and it went 5-0 before I took a break.
P.S. Putting something like "end of the story" after your point doesn't add to your point, it verifies that you're not interested in actually discussing a topic and that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. My opinion still stands, thank you very much.
End of the story means I'm not interested in repeating myself. There are like 3 threads discussing Malchezaar already and in every single one of them there are people who can't understand simple facts, even though they are explained multiple times.
Mulligan... Yes Malchezaar triggers after it, so it won't negatively affect consistency of your initial hand. But it will negatively affect every single draw throghout the game. So saying that consistency drop isn't that significant is badly false. Same applies to saying 30 cards is small amount. It doesn't matter by any means.
Now cycle. Look at this beautiful yugioh card: http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Upstart_Goblin So simple, right? Play it, draw a card. People used to run 3-of them (max.) in many yugioh decks for years. You know why? Because 3 of those cards in your deck make it being 37 cards deck, not 40. But there still were some idiots without basic understanding of math, who played 43 cards decks (and more), including 3 Upstarts. And they didn't know that if only they didn't play those 3 Upstarts, they'd have normal 40 cards deck without giving opponents 3000 hp throghout the game! So now you say "play more cycle". So basically you are like one of those who played 43 cards with 3 Upstars included. Because you say "hey, if Malchezaar affects your consistency negatively, you can play more cycle!". The thing is I wouldn't need to play more cycle if I didn't put shitty Malchezaar in the first place. You want me to firstly make my deck less consistent and then to try nulify consistency loss by adding different cards. Don't you see it's ridiculous?
1) Make the deck worse.
2) Try to make it less worse.
This is your magic formula. But the problem is if you didn't make it worse initially it would be better now and you wouldn't have to think how to make it less worse.
This is really end of the story. I mean, as I said, I'm tired of both repeating myself and being forced to explain obvious things. I'll agree to disagree here. Making people realize how Hearthstone (and math) works isn't goal of my life and this card for sure doesn't deserve so much of my time. You want to play it? Go for it and have fun. I'm not going to either play it (unless I one day want to have some fun with it) or discuss about it anymore. Cheers.
Your argument in support of your (unproven) pet theory is riddled with logical fallacies. It is your pet theory. Yes, you can do basic math. Congratulations. But the monumentally simple math you're doing in your tilted-towards-your-own-theory stubborn head is currently being destroyed by the facts (results) emerging on ladder with this card. I hate this card, btw, despise what it is introducing into the meta (more lucky RNG winners), but it is what it is. Results don't lie. The only question that matters is does this card take a 49% win rate deck and turn it into a 52% win rate deck? You want a mostly pure 30-card game after mulligan, it seems. I'd like that too. Guess what -- it doesn't exist anymore, and won't until this card cycles out. Frankly you seem butthurt over this card; I'm guessing it trashed a couple of your favorite decks unexpectedly and lost you some ranks, so now you're railing against it with ad-hoc arguments that aren't backed up by real statistics.
Math doesn't lie; unless you're going to fatigue, Prince Malchezaar is always bad. Not just 'not great' bad, but 'makes your deck strictly worse' bad. T4te's arguments are not ad-hoc or biased, and to claim that they 'aren't back up by real statistics' is laughable- the argument is little more than math, and there is absolutely no argument* you can make to refute his claim.
Logic and bias are two completely things. Good day.
*aside from the mulligan argument, ofc, which is relatively weak.
Today in my free brawl pack I got Barongeddon, then I had a cup of fresh green tea. As a result of that, I think Priest is OP because my keyboard is not a mechanical one. I hope Blizzard will address this issue.
No, it's you who don't understand. You constantly talk about late game. There is no late-game! We don't have a control meta. Games are decided by turn 10. Stop talking as if you played only Renolock vs CW match-ups. Don't you understand that out of 10 games, 6 will be vs Aggro Shaman? And what you want vs Aggro Shaman? 5 shitty legendaries (wow, I have strong late game, so bad I'm dead, but at least I win every control match-up) or Reno at turn 6? Once again, time to wake up, if you play mainly vs friends and you have a deal to use only controls, then sure, you are a god with malchezaar. But other players play real hearthstone and they want as consistent deck as possible.
And I don't need any so called pro to tell me which card is bad. Malchezaar is bad, because I can do basic math. I want a 30 cards deck, not 35. I want to draw good cards, not shitty ones. And if I wanted to have 5 more legendaries in the deck, I would put them there. End of the story.
Alright, I'll rephrase it.
Malchezaar's effect happens after the mulligan. If your deck is more removal and clears and taunts and heals because you're running less late game because of Malchezaar, you'll more likely get removal or clears or taunts or heals in your starting hand than something like a Ysera. That's pretty powerful. It also means that you can fit in more card draw than you otherwise might be comfortable with, meaning you can play removal more willingly where you might otherwise leave a minion on the board a turn or two longer to board clear it with other decks, essentially giving you health.
Yes, more cards is typically worse than less, but 30-35 cards, again, is considered very few in your typical card game anyway, and Hearthstone has plenty of cards to cycle for draw in almost every class. That said, he's a card that I would only consider running in very specific decks anyway, out of the 18 decks I have right now only one runs Malchezaar, and it went 5-0 before I took a break.
P.S. Putting something like "end of the story" after your point doesn't add to your point, it verifies that you're not interested in actually discussing a topic and that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. My opinion still stands, thank you very much.
End of the story means I'm not interested in repeating myself. There are like 3 threads discussing Malchezaar already and in every single one of them there are people who can't understand simple facts, even though they are explained multiple times.
Mulligan... Yes Malchezaar triggers after it, so it won't negatively affect consistency of your initial hand. But it will negatively affect every single draw throghout the game. So saying that consistency drop isn't that significant is badly false. Same applies to saying 30 cards is small amount. It doesn't matter by any means.
Now cycle. Look at this beautiful yugioh card: http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Upstart_Goblin So simple, right? Play it, draw a card. People used to run 3-of them (max.) in many yugioh decks for years. You know why? Because 3 of those cards in your deck make it being 37 cards deck, not 40. But there still were some idiots without basic understanding of math, who played 43 cards decks (and more), including 3 Upstarts. And they didn't know that if only they didn't play those 3 Upstarts, they'd have normal 40 cards deck without giving opponents 3000 hp throghout the game! So now you say "play more cycle". So basically you are like one of those who played 43 cards with 3 Upstars included. Because you say "hey, if Malchezaar affects your consistency negatively, you can play more cycle!". The thing is I wouldn't need to play more cycle if I didn't put shitty Malchezaar in the first place. You want me to firstly make my deck less consistent and then to try nulify consistency loss by adding different cards. Don't you see it's ridiculous?
1) Make the deck worse.
2) Try to make it less worse.
This is your magic formula. But the problem is if you didn't make it worse initially it would be better now and you wouldn't have to think how to make it less worse.
This is really end of the story. I mean, as I said, I'm tired of both repeating myself and being forced to explain obvious things. I'll agree to disagree here. Making people realize how Hearthstone (and math) works isn't goal of my life and this card for sure doesn't deserve so much of my time. You want to play it? Go for it and have fun. I'm not going to either play it (unless I one day want to have some fun with it) or discuss about it anymore. Cheers.
Your argument in support of your (unproven) pet theory is riddled with logical fallacies. It is your pet theory. Yes, you can do basic math. Congratulations. But the monumentally simple math you're doing in your tilted-towards-your-own-theory stubborn head is currently being destroyed by the facts (results) emerging on ladder with this card. I hate this card, btw, despise what it is introducing into the meta (more lucky RNG winners), but it is what it is. Results don't lie. The only question that matters is does this card take a 49% win rate deck and turn it into a 52% win rate deck? You want a mostly pure 30-card game after mulligan, it seems. I'd like that too. Guess what -- it doesn't exist anymore, and won't until this card cycles out. Frankly you seem butthurt over this card; I'm guessing it trashed a couple of your favorite decks unexpectedly and lost you some ranks, so now you're railing against it with ad-hoc arguments that aren't backed up by real statistics. [/Spoiler]
Math doesn't lie; unless you're going to fatigue, Prince Malchezaar is always bad. Not just 'not great' bad, but 'makes your deck strictly worse' bad. T4te's arguments are not ad-hoc or biased, and to claim that they 'aren't back up by real statistics' is laughable- the argument is little more than math, and there is absolutely no argument* you can make to refute his claim.
Logic and bias are two completely things. Good day.
*aside from the mulligan argument, ofc, which is relatively weak.
I'm not going to argue that this card is good by any stretch of the imagination currently, but that doesn't make it objectively bad either. It really depends on your usage, and while it may never see real play at top 100 Legendary, it does see pretty consistent play in numbered tiers and high legendary with varying success depending on the deck type. I am not going to pretend that numbers and statistics don't matter, but you have to concede the same point when looking at the lower skilled standard player's and their decks.
My two cents. Prince Malchezaar is an interesting card, it allows an extreme fatigue strategy similar to the one we saw right before the introduction of standard format with Removal Warrior. It's true that you always want your deck to be thin in a card game, but it's also true that in HS control vs control matchups often end in fatigue. The trick is building your deck in a way that allows you to survive aggro just like you do with the classic CW, but with 5 more cards plus Elise to dominate fatigue. So you just take out 5 mid/late game legendaries (Sylvanas, Ragnaros, Grom and such) that will be replaced, although randomly, by the Prince, and put in 5 more removal tools to balance it out. It's as simple as that, but I'm testing a deck like this and I'm afraid it doesn't work any better than a classic CW. I guess the reason is this: it's not about the sheer number of removal options you have, it's about them being efficient. RIght now, very few of them are. You still need to draw that turn 1 Fiery War Axe, that timely Brawl or Execute, and that's where Prince is gonna hurt you 'cause if you're having a dead turn midgame, you'd prefer to drop a Sylvanas that will win you the brawl the following turn, a Grom to clear a minion or a Rag to put pressure, instead you're stuck with Boogeymonster.
I'll try the same strategy with more taunt minions, but we're lacking Deathlord and Sludge Belcher in that department. Soggoth is very efficient (and underrated IMHO), I already run him but he comes very late. I guess in Wild the deck should fare better, as some of you have suggested, with the aforementioned cards.
I'm gonna try Prince in Fatigue Priest and maybe Paladin too, healing and AoEs could be better suited to this particular gameplan. Priest could run up to six of them, even more if you count Pyromancer, but then again, you miss the most efficient one in Lightbomb.
I don't think the card is gonna be that good in Renolock. Sure it fits the theme, but you're already winning late game with Jaraxxus. Spamming 6/6s for two mana is better than drawing 5 more cards. Handlock has always been perfectly fine hitting fatigue first in control matchups due to life tap, 'cause Jaraxxus is always there.
Life is OP.
Please Blizzard nerf Life.
Life banned from standard format confirmed. Indirect Death buff.
Thank you Blizzard.
This is a different game than Yu-Gi-Oh, keep in mind. Yes, you wouldn't need more cycle if you didn't run Malchezaar, but cylce is always good, it's just that too much can screw you over against control. With Malchezaar, you can tech your deck to remove more stuff quicker (it makes your mulligans more consistent when you build your deck around Malch), meaning you can, in theory, do better against aggro.
Now, Hearthstone is very different than most other card games. I must admit that a card like Malchezaar can be strictly bad and not at all good in other card games, but in Hearthstone, I imagine it can be powerful, strictly through the general nature of most Legendary minions. I have limited experience with the card so far, though, having only played five games, but I did win those five games, so I'm so far inclined to believe it's pretty good, especially because he has impacted the game pretty substantially for me at times.
The reason why something like this can never be "end of the story" is the constant change in Hearthstone's meta. In a few months, we'll have ~150 new cards, while ~200 cards are cycling out. That's a pretty considerably different meta. And it depends strictly on that meta how well Malchezaar will preform--playing him in Wild can actually fish you some pretty awesome stuff. So no, the opinions of some or many does not solidify the quality of the card; the quality of the card will change until it cycles out itself, but for right now, I personally believe it's pretty good, because I've so far done well with it.
Barnes into Majordomo. That was fun! Thank you Malchezaar!
Its a good card against control decks but terrible against other non control decks. It just can literally cost you game because you drew a legendary card instead of the card you needed. Tried him in Renolock where he was terrible and in Ressurect Priest where he was decent.
Moving into https://outof.cards/members/firepaladinhs/decks
Haven't tried him out yet, but played against a Warrior who must've been Malchazaars homie... At first he got Elise, which is a pretty good card, but nothing ridiculous, but come late game, Malchazaar gave him a Ysera, Malygos and Chrommagus... I guess Malchazaar felt like he should play Dragon Warrior...
I dunno, I'm currently 8-2 with a Malchezaar deck and most of the time both him and the minion's he's created have done God's work. Only one of the two losses was due to having a bunch of big minions in hand, the other was just coincidental bad tempo, but I didn't draw any big stuff.
I have tried 3 decks with malchezaar, a Mage a mill Rogue and a thief Rogue. My verdict is in a deck that destroys aggro or a deck that does not care about the aggro match-up, he can be great. Obviously if you have a deck that kills zoo and a group shaman and struggles against slower decks, he helps against slower decks, currently that is not useful though. If like my mill Rogue you really just want midrange or control math ups, he can edge out an advantage, because he is not a horrible body and a lot of legendaries are very helpful because of their sheer power. The thing is I don't think the meta works with him, because he requires people to be playing control decks, or at least combo. Neither is super popular right now, but they are more popular than a month ago.
Just fill your deck with one drops, that is creative deck design, right?
The best Malchezaar moment I've had was when my opponent used him and also used Barnes. Turn 4 he drops a 1/1 major dojo executus. Pretty easy win when your opponent goes down to 8 health on his own for you.
i apologize for trash talking but i realy hate this card
it always costs me games beacuse it fucks up my draw,i im on a brink od DE it, i mean its cool in theory but it just doesnt work
you dont draw reno,or a crucial removal in warrior beacuse of this card meta i so fast you cannot afford misdraws
I'm all for people experimenting, but it should be pretty obvious that this card is bad unless the meta settles down into heavy control. A thicker deck is awful for aggro and midrange. A thicker deck for control dealing with heavy pressure and desperately looking for answers is also bad. Additionally, since the card has to obey deckbuilding rules and can't give you dupes, you're guaranteed, at best, cards you already couldn't justify as 1 of 30 - not exactly game-winning stuff.
The only practical use I can see is if you want to play a budget control deck and don't have any of the win condition legendaries. Obviously the consistency would be brutal, but at least you'd have a chance at getting Rag, Sylv, etc.
#gNOmeferatu