Hearthpwn

I don't think Captain is the problem. The nerf to Patches is just fine. Patches and the Captain will only be playable in Pirate Decks, not in every single aggro deck.

I appreciate the spirit with which you argue your case in this thread man, but just consider this - since patches became popular just about every single tempo, token and aggro deck has run hte pirate package, and it wasn't due to southsea captain. Now with the nerf to patches you'll see the pirate package fade from the majority , if not all of these decks. I fear he might still be a problem in call-to-arms ship's cannon paladin in wild, but we'll see.

Patches was played even without the Captain.

The Captain was almost never played without Patches.

Case closed.

Quote from TheImmondBeast >>

Patches was played even without the Captain.

The Captain was almost never played without Patches.

Case closed.

Quote from LGP747 >>

Quote from TheImmondBeast >>

Patches was played even without the Captain.

The Captain was almost never played without Patches.

Case closed.

 ^THANK YOU

an explanation ANYONE could understand

I'll just. Take a look at a little number 1 legend pirate deck back from MSOG: Cursed Pirate Warrior Oh! No captain!?!?

Quote from scorpyon >>

Nope, you're right. Southsea Captain is a sometimes card. If by "sometimes" you mean "always"....
I'm sure if you scoured hard enough, you could probably find maybe one or two weird homebrew versions that didn't run him. But I think it's probably safe to say calling the Captain a "sometimes" card is preeeeeetty wrong on that one. :-)

Quote from scorpyon >>

Quote from PsyyKik >>

I appreciate the spirit with which you argue your case in this thread man, but just consider this - since patches became popular just about every single tempo, token and aggro deck has run hte pirate package, and it wasn't due to southsea captain. Now with the nerf to patches you'll see the pirate package fade from the majority , if not all of these decks. I fear he might still be a problem in call-to-arms ship's cannon paladin in wild, but we'll see.

Thank you :- )  -  I don't disagree that (with the nerf to Patches), the overall pirate package takes a big hit. I am certainly not questioning that Patches itself was a strong card.
My overall argument is in the strength of the Captain as a card.

An interesting counterpoint to all this is in considering another synergistic set of cards in the community mind right now: Raza, the Chained and DK Anduin. 
Which one of those two cards is the powerhouse that makes the other one so powerful?
Judging from the nerfs, Blizzard believes it to be Raza (which is an odd choice, for a few reasons). However, without Anduin, Raza is a "Meh!" card at best. You could "maybe" find a use with shadow form, maybe not.
And alternatively, without Raza, Anduin now is pretty "Meh! as well. He can do maybe a little damage in a turn, but the nerf to Raza has crippled him. 

In a similar vein, I think there is this symbiotic relationship between Patches and the Captain here, too. But of the two cards, I completely stand by my opinion that the Captain is the stronger of the two and (like Blizzard did in the last pirate nerfage), they've brought the hammer down on the wrong card once again.

But I don't want to detract this thread here (this isn't a discussion about the nerfs - it is just unfortunate timing that the announcements came out literally the evening after I made this thread! Heh!). 

The intention is to look at the Captain as a card and how modifying him can change his interaction with other cards - and in particular how this would change the symbiotic relationship with Patches.

Quote from TheImmondBeast >>

Quote from LGP747 >>

Quote from TheImmondBeast >>

Patches was played even without the Captain.

The Captain was almost never played without Patches.

Case closed.

 ^THANK YOU

an explanation ANYONE could understand

 Thanks buddy! I am afraid OP will still refuse to agree with ALL OF US. I bet he voted for Brexit as well.

Quote from scorpyon>>

And now you're just going around in circles, dude. :-S
Your whole argument keeps changing, every time. You need to stick to one idea. 

This is really only because you keep moving the goalposts on the discussion, I know it's somewhat foolish to keep engaging in some who does that, but luckily I don't really expect any actual understanding here, just enjoying typing I guess!

Quote from scorpyon >>

Like I said - you managed to find one deck that didn't run the Captain. (Like I said you would try and do).
So, we can effectively change your original statement, from being that Captain was a "sometimes" card to : The Captain was a "Most of the time" card. As we have proven, there are rare cases where he isn't included.

Quote from scorpyon >

As for the pirate decks, I was using your very own criteria for the examples - which is probably why you've now veered away from that.

Quote from scorpyon >>

Anyway, I'm still not going to allow this to be sidetracked with pointless arguments about whether Patches needs the Captain, or vice versa. Please stop trying to hijack the thread this way.

The topic was looking at how the changes I suggested being made to the Captain would effect both him and his interaction with other pirate cards and how the balance would change.
Virtually nobody so far has even mentioned this - instead, there's just been a slew of soapboxers about Patches. 

Captain can still be important in making Patches a decent tempo play. Worst case scenario the opposing player is forced to remove Captain the turn after in order to prevent taking up to 5 damage next turn.

However, I never felt Captain needed a nerf, emphasized even moreso after the Patches nerf.

Quote from scorpyon >>

And now you're just going around in circles, dude. :-S
Your whole argument keeps changing, every time. You need to stick to one idea.

Like I said - you managed to find one deck that didn't run the Captain. (Like I said you would try and do).
So, we can effectively change your original statement, from being that Captain was a "sometimes" card to : The Captain was a "Most of the time" card. As we have proven, there are rare cases where he isn't included.

As for the pirate decks, I was using your very own criteria for the examples - which is probably why you've now veered away from that.

Anyway, I'm still not going to allow this to be sidetracked with pointless arguments about whether Patches needs the Captain, or vice versa. Please stop trying to hijack the thread this way.

The topic was looking at how the changes I suggested being made to the Captain would effect both him and his interaction with other pirate cards and how the balance would change.
Virtually nobody so far has even mentioned this - instead, there's just been a slew of soapboxers about Patches. 

 As everyone has previously stated, there is not a single deck that runs Southsea Captain without Patches the Pirate but there are decks that run Patches and not the Captain. I'll admit, this is not a 100% accurate way to see which one is the problem card but it is a good first step. Southsea Captain is a card that no one ever complained about before Patches. Let's look at some of the top legend decks in Karazhan, Whispers of the Old Gods, and League of Explorers.

None in Karazhan:

https://sectorone.eu/top-legend-karazhan-decks-november-2016-part-1/

None in Whispers of the Old Gods:

http://www.hearthstonetopdecks.com/best-standard-decks-from-wotog-whispers-of-the-old-gods-so-far/

None in League of Explorers:

http://www.hearthstonetopdecks.com/league-of-explorers-deck-lists-from-pros-and-streamers/

I would also like to mention that this thread has not been sidetracked. The very nature of the thread has caused that the conversation about whether Patches or Southsea Captain is the problem has begun. I, for one, encourage the conversation because it helps expand the mind to see what other people think. But that's just my opinion.

Hope this helps! :) 

Quote from scorpyon >>

If someone wants to actually discuss the changes I proposed (which was the actual point of this thread, rather than engaging in pointless discussions about what decks used what cards), I'll be happy to continue that discussion.

If you're going to just sit there and whine about your incorrect theories regarding Patches for eternity, I'm happy to point you in the direction of a useful thread for those sorts of rants. :-P

That the suggestion is unnecessary was and is, from most people, referring to the situation even previous to the nerf of patches. People have posted plenty about why that is without referring to the nerf at all including the person you're saying isn't adding anything meaningful to the proposal. But you don't want to hear anything but people agreeing with you I guess. Maybe you could make a thread that asks people to just complement you, instead of trying to make one with an actual topic, that might reach more success.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯