Hearthpwn

"Card Cycle is a card that gives you 0 card advantage, card draw is a card that gives you at least 1 card advantage (so Arcane Intellect is card draw). Even if the card gives tempo (i.e. a body), the card is still card cycle, but it gives tempo at the same time. Though Warsong Wrangler is actually a tutor, since it draws a specific card from your deck. Which is typically something Hunter needs because it can't afford to just draw cards without tempo because it can't play from behind."

With this definition of cycle, Warsong Wrangler is, in fact, card draw, because the body being on the board is a +1 when it is played, so card advantage. It is strange how often card game players have different opinions on what terms such as these mean, when they are actually talking about the same thing.

You could nerf Tundra Rhino to a 5/4 and hunter as a class still wouldn't be dead in this meta. Sure, it wouldn't reduce the damage output, but you could also add more heal/armor gain and especially silence effects to standard for a control buff. Imo there is no problem with hunter having a good deck in the meta, but you have to ask yourself how any other hunter archtype will ever be viable if not only the hero power but also almost all the good cards in the class are either burn/tempo or card draw to get more burn/tempo. And I don't mean control, which seems very unlikely anyway, but what about midrange or combo decks? It's just an extremely one-dimensional class.

Quote from D_Lord >>

"Card Cycle is a card that gives you 0 card advantage, card draw is a card that gives you at least 1 card advantage (so Arcane Intellect is card draw). Even if the card gives tempo (i.e. a body), the card is still card cycle, but it gives tempo at the same time. Though Warsong Wrangler is actually a tutor, since it draws a specific card from your deck. Which is typically something Hunter needs because it can't afford to just draw cards without tempo because it can't play from behind."

With this definition of cycle, Warsong Wrangler is, in fact, card draw, because the body being on the board is a +1 when it is played, so card advantage. It is strange how often card game players have different opinions on what terms such as these mean, when they are actually talking about the same thing.

You could nerf Tundra Rhino to a 5/4 and hunter as a class still wouldn't be dead in this meta. Sure, it wouldn't reduce the damage output, but you could also add more heal/armor gain and especially silence effects to standard for a control buff. Imo there is no problem with hunter having a good deck in the meta, but you have to ask yourself how any other hunter archtype will ever be viable if not only the hero power but also almost all the good cards in the class are either burn/tempo or card draw to get more burn/tempo. And I don't mean control, which seems very unlikely anyway, but what about midrange or combo decks? It's just an extremely one-dimensional class.

It's not. Card advantage refers to your hand, not what's on your board. Like it's kind of immaterial what the word refers to anyway, the bottom line is that the draw cards Hunter has gives it's deck plenty of velocity, and most of their cards are super efficient anyway.

Hunter is an aggro class. Even slower, more expensive decks in the past (like Deathrattle Hunter in Kobolds) have been aggro decks more or less. The quest from Uldum was an aggro quest. Uldum Brann was an aggro card. Their new attempt at Deathrattle Hunter is an aggro deck that wants to blast you in the face with huge deathrattles.

Their only attempt at "control Hunter" that even remotely worked was Deathstalker Rexxar. But even that just got shoved as a one off in tempo Hunter decks because it was so cheap.

I think there's lots of wiggle room in there. These decks don't play or run the same at all.

And I don't mean control, which seems very unlikely anyway, but what about midrange or combo decks? It's just an extremely one-dimensional class.

That's more to do with the meta than with hunter's class mechanics.  If the meta punishes any attempt to play midrange, combo or control, guess what... hunters gotta go face.

But I'll emphasize again, if you'd like to see hunters play something other than an aggro deck, nerfing rhino (combo) or warsong (every archetype) would make that even less likely.

Card advantage is literally the number of cards available to you vs. available to your opponent. It is not limited to cards in hand. Where did you get that from?

If I make 2 positive trades on the board, I have a +2 card advantage over my opponent.

Quote from D_Lord >>

Card advantage is literally the number of cards available to you vs. available to your opponent. It is not limited to cards in hand. Where did you get that from?

If I make 2 positive trades on the board, I have a +2 card advantage over my opponent.

 Fine, "Hand advantage".

Jfc.

One of the things they look at is this: Does a card with an extremely high played win rate appear in multiple successful archetypes for the same class?

For Inquisitor, that's definitely true. For Rhino, I'm not so sure. There are slightly different decks that use it, but they might be considered variants, not separate archetypes.

Troublemaker is in both Rush and Control Warrior, but I don't think we can call Control Warrior successful at the moment.

Quote from Gnorf >>

Troublemaker and Inquisitor are late game minions.  Expensive, late game cards should be powerful, otherwise they'd see no play.  Lots of 8-cost cards are similarly powerful.  

 Really? ROFL. Please compare Inquisitor to legendary minions like KIng Krush and Alexstraza and prove me that it is OK to have two copies of it in a deck.

Quote from fabjx >>

Quote from Gnorf >>

Troublemaker and Inquisitor are late game minions.  Expensive, late game cards should be powerful, otherwise they'd see no play.  Lots of 8-cost cards are similarly powerful.  

 Really? ROFL. Please compare Inquisitor to legendary minions like KIng Krush and Alexstraza and prove me that it is OK to have two copies of it in a deck.

I said Inquisitor should be powerful for its cost, or it'd see no play.  On top of that, class cards tend to be a bit more powerful than similar neutrals, so keep that in mind when you compare to Alex.  And expansion cards probably a bit more powerful than similar core set cards, which might explain why Krush feels underpowered in comparison.

Is Inquisitor too powerful, and in need of a nerf?  TBH, the card in that deck that really bothers me is Death Speaker Blackthorn.  That one is straight busted.

Quote from fabjx >>

Quote from Gnorf >>

Troublemaker and Inquisitor are late game minions.  Expensive, late game cards should be powerful, otherwise they'd see no play.  Lots of 8-cost cards are similarly powerful.  

 Really? ROFL. Please compare Inquisitor to legendary minions like KIng Krush and Alexstraza and prove me that it is OK to have two copies of it in a deck.

 King Krush is a classic card it's known to be weak since basically the launch of hearthstone or even the beta, it's not a fair power level comparison to modern powerful cards. There's a 7 mana king krush that summons a 2/4 in the game now, powercreep exists.

Alexstrasza is neutral, can heal you and goes through taunt.

Also legendary status is not supposed to be a power level thing, there are weak legendary cards and strong non-legendary cards, it's just a thing an there's nothing wrong with it.

The Rhino is stupid as shit I will agree on that. It's just dumb to give hunter a card that can apply that much pressure, even vs taunts. Non-games vs aggro are killing this game. The other 2 are modern late game drops. We had many 8 drops in the past the saw zero play because they need to be OP and affect the game when they hit the borad...because of cards like rhino. Slow 8 drops are unplayable. For perspective, Tirion is now too slow as an 8 drop lol. The problem has got worse.

Devs forgetting the game is still 30hp base.

Seriously, an 8/8 for 8 that can attack the turn it's played is still a good card. It doesn't necessarily need Rush to be impactful.

Quote from Gnorf >>

Quote from fabjx >>

Quote from Gnorf >>

Troublemaker and Inquisitor are late game minions.  Expensive, late game cards should be powerful, otherwise they'd see no play.  Lots of 8-cost cards are similarly powerful.  

 Really? ROFL. Please compare Inquisitor to legendary minions like KIng Krush and Alexstraza and prove me that it is OK to have two copies of it in a deck.

I said Inquisitor should be powerful for its cost, or it'd see no play.  On top of that, class cards tend to be a bit more powerful than similar neutrals, so keep that in mind when you compare to Alex.  And expansion cards probably a bit more powerful than similar core set cards, which might explain why Krush feels underpowered in comparison.

Is Inquisitor too powerful, and in need of a nerf?  TBH, the card in that deck that really bothers me is Death Speaker Blackthorn.  That one is straight busted.

 Inquisitor is a core set card. Of course that would be the “new” core set but nevertheless I agree that its power level would be much more reasonable if it was a legendary card. It’s huge, impactful, and an immediate threat every time it comes out (when it doesn’t win you the game automatically) so if that’s not legendary status i don’t know what is.