I asked, you replied, and I said there was no more reason to talk about it after that reply. Ergo, don't try to get a parthian shot in, just drop it,
I don't understand to be honest, I mean you leave an incorrect remark on your replies, and expect me not to correct them?
Just as a rule to stick by. If truly don't want there to be more conversation on the subject, it might be best to end the conversation on a remark that is unlikely to be replied to. Telling me I should be ashamed of playing Infinite Burn Mage, or that the deck is not challenging to pilot when it is easily proven otherwise, is probably not the best way to do it. Specially when the reply is directed at me, because those I will see and likely reply to.
I really tried, but you've honestly completely beaten me there. The remark part, that is. Touché.
A good tip for ending conversations.. avoid ALL sidenotes. If it doesn't pertain to the actual topic, resist the urge to comment on it.
For all of how large my posts get, I've had a LOT of times when I've had to gut several paragraphs out beforehand because I talked about something beside the point and realized I didn't want to get into a discussion about it.
Alternatively, if you want to leave the comment, and someone replied and you don't want to get into it... hit the back button.
Myself I've saved myself A LOT of typing by just reciting in a superhero tone "Someone is wrong on the internet!" It's a reminder that it's NOT THAT important to get into internet debates and that it's perfectly fine to let people be wrong or in a disagreement with you.
I'd say Chief Inspector for the simple reason a 4/6 for 5 mana isn't as bad as a 2/4 for 4 mana. Eater of Secrets needs an actual Secret in play just to be fairly statted and you won't always get that scenario. Chief Inspector is fine to play for the stats and has the additional bonus of being great against Secrets should there be any.
Sure, Eater of Secrets is great if you get multiple Secrets with it, but how common is that scenario? Chief Inspector will still kill off the Secrets, which is the primary reason to play these cards. Eater of Secrets being 1 mana cheaper is a plus for it though.
One is higher risk/reward, the other is more reliable in a generic sense. Given that only 3 classes really play Secrets (I'm not counting Rogue Secrets here) and even then they may not play them, I'd rather go for the reliable 4/6. Chief Inspector isn't dependant on the opponent having a Secret up to be a decent enough play.
I'd say Chief Inspector for the simple reason a 4/6 for 5 mana isn't as bad as a 2/4 for 4 mana.
Mathematically, there is nothing wrong with this logic and it sounds like it makes logical sense - until you consider the context of when you would play it in a game and how, etc. But since you are likely to only ever play one of these in your deck (2 is usually overkill), you will naturally try and get the best value, so even if you just use it to kill off 2 secrets, then Eater of Secrets is instantly better, being a 4/6 for 4 mana rather than Chief Inspector who is a 4/6 for 5 mana.
And then as soon as you start eating any more secrets than that, the card becomes better and better.
Sure, Eater of Secrets is great if you get multiple Secrets with it, but how common is that scenario?
A very common case in point for this consideration. Look at any hunter that plays spellstone. (Which if they are playing secrets, they almost all will). In this common scenario, there is a strong likelihood that the hunter will have played at least 2 secrets by turn 5 for the spellstone. (Which is the earliest you would play the Inspector anyway without a coin). So there is a big likelihood of multiple spells.
Other examples include Secret Mage / Tempo mage. They often have dual spells on the board (Exploding Runes and Counterspell) by turn 5 or 6 as well.
I'd say Chief Inspector for the simple reason a 4/6 for 5 mana isn't as bad as a 2/4 for 4 mana.
Mathematically, there is nothing wrong with this logic and it sounds like it makes logical sense - until you consider the context of when you would play it in a game and how, etc. But since you are likely to only ever play one of these in your deck (2 is usually overkill), you will naturally try and get the best value, so even if you just use it to kill off 2 secrets, then Eater of Secrets is instantly better, being a 4/6 for 4 mana rather than Chief Inspector who is a 4/6 for 5 mana.
And then as soon as you start eating any more secrets than that, the card becomes better and better.
Sure, Eater of Secrets is great if you get multiple Secrets with it, but how common is that scenario?
A very common case in point for this consideration. Look at any hunter that plays spellstone. (Which if they are playing secrets, they almost all will). In this common scenario, there is a strong likelihood that the hunter will have played at least 2 secrets by turn 5 for the spellstone. (Which is the earliest you would play the Inspector anyway without a coin). So there is a big likelihood of multiple spells.
Other examples include Secret Mage / Tempo mage. They often have dual spells on the board (Exploding Runes and Counterspell) by turn 5 or 6 as well.
Hmm, I'm only considering Standard here (don't play Wild myself) so I maybe Secrets are being played even more there?
Personally I just don't like the idea of having a potentially weak card in my deck against a class that might not even have Secrets. And against a class that does have them, it's still a case of that they might use Secrets (granted, Mage/Hunter Secrets are common), but do you want to hold on to it then? What if it's your only Turn 4 play and there are no Secrets up? Is it a dead card unless your opponent plays a Secret?
Again I don't play Wild myself and I didn't see Eater of Secrets all that much in the previous year so maybe I haven't really seen how often it can be a powerful play.
Hmm, I'm only considering Standard here (don't play Wild myself) so I maybe Secrets are being played even more there?
Personally I just don't like the idea of having a potentially weak card in my deck against a class that might not even have Secrets. And against a class that does have them, it's still a case of that they might use Secrets (granted, Mage/Hunter Secrets are common), but do you want to hold on to it then? What if it's your only Turn 4 play and there are no Secrets up? Is it a dead card unless your opponent plays a Secret?
Again I don't play Wild myself and I didn't see Eater of Secrets all that much in the previous year so maybe I haven't really seen how often it can be a powerful play.
To clarify, I am talking about Standard also - though EoS is obv a wild card now. While not as popular, the mage secrets are still used in a selection of their decks - odd tempo mage for example uses them. Against decks that have no secrets at all, it's not really here nor there - there are always better 4 drops than EoS and better 5 drops than CI. But neither are dead cards. A 2/4 on turn 4 isn't terrible. And neither is a 4/6 on turn 5. But 4-mana cards are notoriously less powerfull than their 5-mana brothers (as in, there are much better choices for other 5-drops than there are for other 4-drops when compared to each other). So losing a 5-drop space to a vanilla card is a much worse prospect than losing a 4-drop space - if you get what I'm saying. However that all said, the most common class played currently in the Standard meta is Hunter. And of that the most popular version is Spell Hunter which is a secret-heavy deck. (After that, you have beast hunter and Secret Hunter which both use secrets as well (although BH only plays a couple different ones).
I asked, you replied, and I said there was no more reason to talk about it after that reply. Ergo, don't try to get a parthian shot in, just drop it,
I don't understand to be honest, I mean you leave an incorrect remark on your replies, and expect me not to correct them?
Just as a rule to stick by. If truly don't want there to be more conversation on the subject, it might be best to end the conversation on a remark that is unlikely to be replied to. Telling me I should be ashamed of playing Infinite Burn Mage, or that the deck is not challenging to pilot when it is easily proven otherwise, is probably not the best way to do it. Specially when the reply is directed at me, because those I will see and likely reply to.
I really tried, but you've honestly completely beaten me there. The remark part, that is. Touché.
A good tip for ending conversations.. avoid ALL sidenotes. If it doesn't pertain to the actual topic, resist the urge to comment on it.
For all of how large my posts get, I've had a LOT of times when I've had to gut several paragraphs out beforehand because I talked about something beside the point and realized I didn't want to get into a discussion about it.
Alternatively, if you want to leave the comment, and someone replied and you don't want to get into it... hit the back button.
Myself I've saved myself A LOT of typing by just reciting in a superhero tone "Someone is wrong on the internet!" It's a reminder that it's NOT THAT important to get into internet debates and that it's perfectly fine to let people be wrong or in a disagreement with you.
Imagine thinking flare wouldn't be ran in every class over a 5 mana 4/6 ayy le meow
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look, I want to tell you something because you're very dear to me. And I hope you understand that it comes from the bottom of my damaged, damaged heart. You are the finest piece of ass I've ever had and I don't care who knows it. I am so glad that I got to roam those hillsides.
Hmm, I'm only considering Standard here (don't play Wild myself) so I maybe Secrets are being played even more there?
Personally I just don't like the idea of having a potentially weak card in my deck against a class that might not even have Secrets. And against a class that does have them, it's still a case of that they might use Secrets (granted, Mage/Hunter Secrets are common), but do you want to hold on to it then? What if it's your only Turn 4 play and there are no Secrets up? Is it a dead card unless your opponent plays a Secret?
Again I don't play Wild myself and I didn't see Eater of Secrets all that much in the previous year so maybe I haven't really seen how often it can be a powerful play.
To clarify, I am talking about Standard also - though EoS is obv a wild card now. While not as popular, the mage secrets are still used in a selection of their decks - odd tempo mage for example uses them. Against decks that have no secrets at all, it's not really here nor there - there are always better 4 drops than EoS and better 5 drops than CI. But neither are dead cards. A 2/4 on turn 4 isn't terrible. And neither is a 4/6 on turn 5. But 4-mana cards are notoriously less powerfull than their 5-mana brothers (as in, there are much better choices for other 5-drops than there are for other 4-drops when compared to each other). So losing a 5-drop space to a vanilla card is a much worse prospect than losing a 4-drop space - if you get what I'm saying. However that all said, the most common class played currently in the Standard meta is Hunter. And of that the most popular version is Spell Hunter which is a secret-heavy deck. (After that, you have beast hunter and Secret Hunter which both use secrets as well (although BH only plays a couple different ones).
While a 5 mana 4/6 statline still isn't that good either (Consider Pit Fighter, which had no effect but couldn't be carried by its stats). It's closer to the "good stats" line than Eater of Secrets.
Ergo, I would far prefer playing a 5 mana 4/6 on curve than a 4 mana 2/4.
Hmm, I'm only considering Standard here (don't play Wild myself) so I maybe Secrets are being played even more there?
Personally I just don't like the idea of having a potentially weak card in my deck against a class that might not even have Secrets. And against a class that does have them, it's still a case of that they might use Secrets (granted, Mage/Hunter Secrets are common), but do you want to hold on to it then? What if it's your only Turn 4 play and there are no Secrets up? Is it a dead card unless your opponent plays a Secret?
Again I don't play Wild myself and I didn't see Eater of Secrets all that much in the previous year so maybe I haven't really seen how often it can be a powerful play.
To clarify, I am talking about Standard also - though EoS is obv a wild card now. While not as popular, the mage secrets are still used in a selection of their decks - odd tempo mage for example uses them. Against decks that have no secrets at all, it's not really here nor there - there are always better 4 drops than EoS and better 5 drops than CI. But neither are dead cards. A 2/4 on turn 4 isn't terrible. And neither is a 4/6 on turn 5. But 4-mana cards are notoriously less powerfull than their 5-mana brothers (as in, there are much better choices for other 5-drops than there are for other 4-drops when compared to each other). So losing a 5-drop space to a vanilla card is a much worse prospect than losing a 4-drop space - if you get what I'm saying. However that all said, the most common class played currently in the Standard meta is Hunter. And of that the most popular version is Spell Hunter which is a secret-heavy deck. (After that, you have beast hunter and Secret Hunter which both use secrets as well (although BH only plays a couple different ones).
While a 5 mana 4/6 statline still isn't that good either (Consider Pit Fighter, which had no effect but couldn't be carried by its stats). It's closer to the "good stats" line than Eater of Secrets.
Ergo, I would far prefer playing a 5 mana 4/6 on curve than a 4 mana 2/4.
But that's taking the cards at face value as if they were vanilla. In which case I would totally agree with you that a 5 mana 4/6 would be better than a 4 mana 2/4. If that was the sole purpose of the card, you would be correct. But these are tech cards versus a particular type of card. They are designed with their tech usage in mind. And that's the point of this discussion. On the basis of their tech usage and what they do, which is better? And that takes us nicely back to the original point: When you are up against a secret-based deck for which this card is included, where the likelihood is that there will be at least 2 secrets in play when you play this card, which is better? A 4 mana 4/6 (possibly going up to even a 7/9) or a 5 mana 4/6?
Hmm, I'm only considering Standard here (don't play Wild myself) so I maybe Secrets are being played even more there?
Personally I just don't like the idea of having a potentially weak card in my deck against a class that might not even have Secrets. And against a class that does have them, it's still a case of that they might use Secrets (granted, Mage/Hunter Secrets are common), but do you want to hold on to it then? What if it's your only Turn 4 play and there are no Secrets up? Is it a dead card unless your opponent plays a Secret?
Again I don't play Wild myself and I didn't see Eater of Secrets all that much in the previous year so maybe I haven't really seen how often it can be a powerful play.
To clarify, I am talking about Standard also - though EoS is obv a wild card now. While not as popular, the mage secrets are still used in a selection of their decks - odd tempo mage for example uses them. Against decks that have no secrets at all, it's not really here nor there - there are always better 4 drops than EoS and better 5 drops than CI. But neither are dead cards. A 2/4 on turn 4 isn't terrible. And neither is a 4/6 on turn 5. But 4-mana cards are notoriously less powerfull than their 5-mana brothers (as in, there are much better choices for other 5-drops than there are for other 4-drops when compared to each other). So losing a 5-drop space to a vanilla card is a much worse prospect than losing a 4-drop space - if you get what I'm saying. However that all said, the most common class played currently in the Standard meta is Hunter. And of that the most popular version is Spell Hunter which is a secret-heavy deck. (After that, you have beast hunter and Secret Hunter which both use secrets as well (although BH only plays a couple different ones).
While a 5 mana 4/6 statline still isn't that good either (Consider Pit Fighter, which had no effect but couldn't be carried by its stats). It's closer to the "good stats" line than Eater of Secrets.
Ergo, I would far prefer playing a 5 mana 4/6 on curve than a 4 mana 2/4.
But that's taking the cards at face value as if they were vanilla. In which case I would totally agree with you that a 5 mana 4/6 would be better than a 4 mana 2/4. If that was the sole purpose of the card, you would be correct. But these are tech cards versus a particular type of card. They are designed with their tech usage in mind. And that's the point of this discussion. On the basis of their tech usage and what they do, which is better? And that takes us nicely back to the original point: When you are up against a secret-based deck for which this card is included, where the likelihood is that there will be at least 2 secrets in play when you play this card, which is better? A 4 mana 4/6 (possibly going up to even a 7/9) or a 5 mana 4/6?
Considering this part of the reply: "Against decks that have no secrets at all, it's not really here nor there - there are always better 4 drops than EoS and better 5 drops than CI. But neither are dead cards. A 2/4 on turn 4 isn't terrible. And neither is a 4/6 on turn 5." Hopefully it was understandable to see why I'd assume you started talking about their vanilla statline.
And I assure you, I know what the point of this discussion is, considering I made the thread. I also made it pretty clear I was talking about them in general, hence why I pointed out how how Eater of Secrets statline was easily the worst, and that Chief Inspector had easily the best basic statline, in the original post.
Because otherwise one could say "Well Eater of Secrets has the best effect for destroying secrets, and ends up being a 4 mana 7/9. Case is closed, everyone can go home." But there's more to these cards than just their ability to wipe secrets. It's also important that they not be completely dead cards on their own. Hence why I brought up their vanilla statlines both on the original post, and in this reply.
Considering this part of the reply: "Against decks that have no secrets at all, it's not really here nor there - there are always better 4 drops than EoS and better 5 drops than CI. But neither are dead cards. A 2/4 on turn 4 isn't terrible. And neither is a 4/6 on turn 5." Hopefully it was understandable to see why I'd assume you started talking about their vanilla statline.
Sure - but that was taking into effect the additional sub-value provided by their anti-tech usage. The benefit of their abilities when up against a secret-based deck outstrips the fact that the 4-drop is slightly weaker in a vanilla vacuum.
And I assure you, I know what the point of this discussion is, considering I made the thread. I also made it pretty clear I was talking about them in general, hence why I pointed out how how Eater of Secrets statline was easily the worst, and that Chief Inspector had easily the best basic statline, in the original post.
Yes of course - it was not intended to imply you didn't know the point of the dicussion - it was more to bring my own point back round to focussing on it rather than to get hung up on the cards themselves. Having a worse statline doesn't make EoS a worse card in general. Only if it had no other effect on any match up. If you could guarantee that you wouldn't meet a secret then CI is better, sure. But then it would be pointless including either card rather than something better. So in a meta where secrets are widely used by the most popular decks, then EoS still wins for me.
Because otherwise one could say "Well Eater of Secrets has the best effect for destroying secrets, and ends up being a 4 mana 7/9. Case is closed, everyone can go home." But there's more to these cards than just their ability to wipe secrets. It's also important that they not be completely dead cards on their own. Hence why I brought up their vanilla statlines both on the original post, and in this reply.
The bottom line is that the decrease in power that EoS has from being a dead card is vastly outweighted by its much greater power when there are secrets available to be removed. If you consider them just at face value, then you are better off playing neither. But if you take into consideration their potential power and value, EoS always wins.
Considering this part of the reply: "Against decks that have no secrets at all, it's not really here nor there - there are always better 4 drops than EoS and better 5 drops than CI. But neither are dead cards. A 2/4 on turn 4 isn't terrible. And neither is a 4/6 on turn 5." Hopefully it was understandable to see why I'd assume you started talking about their vanilla statline.
Sure - but that was taking into effect the additional sub-value provided by their anti-tech usage. The benefit of their abilities when up against a secret-based deck outstrips the fact that the 4-drop is slightly weaker in a vanilla vacuum.
And I assure you, I know what the point of this discussion is, considering I made the thread. I also made it pretty clear I was talking about them in general, hence why I pointed out how how Eater of Secrets statline was easily the worst, and that Chief Inspector had easily the best basic statline, in the original post.
Yes of course - it was not intended to imply you didn't know the point of the dicussion - it was more to bring my own point back round to focussing on it rather than to get hung up on the cards themselves. Having a worse statline doesn't make EoS a worse card in general. Only if it had no other effect on any match up. If you could guarantee that you wouldn't meet a secret then CI is better, sure. But then it would be pointless including either card rather than something better. So in a meta where secrets are widely used by the most popular decks, then EoS still wins for me.
Because otherwise one could say "Well Eater of Secrets has the best effect for destroying secrets, and ends up being a 4 mana 7/9. Case is closed, everyone can go home." But there's more to these cards than just their ability to wipe secrets. It's also important that they not be completely dead cards on their own. Hence why I brought up their vanilla statlines both on the original post, and in this reply.
The bottom line is that the decrease in power that EoS has from being a dead card is vastly outweighted by its much greater power when there are secrets available to be removed. If you consider them just at face value, then you are better off playing neither. But if you take into consideration their potential power and value, EoS always wins.
Of course, I understand your point now.
It seems as though you agree with the general consensus that Eater of Secrets is easily the best of the tech cards. I think based on that and the votes, it's safe to say we've reached our winner.
It's just a shame more people don't like Kezan Mystic :(
It seems as though you agree with the general consensus that Eater of Secrets is easily the best of the tech cards. I think based on that and the votes, it's safe to say we've reached our winner.
It's just a shame more people don't like Kezan Mystic :(
Yep, I do. :-) *thumbs up* Actually, I do happen to like Kezan Mystic also. I don't think it is a bad card at all. In fact, I'd even consider it possibly better than Chief Inspector as well, if only because it feels more fun to nick someone's secrets than just destroy them. I haven't given too much consideration to this particular comparison though (before that one kicks off, lol!).
In terms of standard, it was one of the very first discussions I kicked off back at the last rotation (once the first set of the new year was revealed), that we were effectively losing any really good anti-secret tech. Chief Inspector often feels lacking and I wish there were other options for classes other than Hunter, etc.
Literally no one is counting Rogue Secrets. I'm yet to come across a Rogue playing secrets yet.
LOL I made a secret strider deck when they first gave rogue secrets (which they shouldnt have, its a garbage mechanic). I have used cheat death in dr decks.
It seems as though you agree with the general consensus that Eater of Secrets is easily the best of the tech cards. I think based on that and the votes, it's safe to say we've reached our winner.
It's just a shame more people don't like Kezan Mystic :(
Yep, I do. :-) *thumbs up* Actually, I do happen to like Kezan Mystic also. I don't think it is a bad card at all. In fact, I'd even consider it possibly better than Chief Inspector as well, if only because it feels more fun to nick someone's secrets than just destroy them. I haven't given too much consideration to this particular comparison though (before that one kicks off, lol!).
In terms of standard, it was one of the very first discussions I kicked off back at the last rotation (once the first set of the new year was revealed), that we were effectively losing any really good anti-secret tech. Chief Inspector often feels lacking and I wish there were other options for classes other than Hunter, etc.
Honestly. Stealing an Ice Block from a Quest Mage player and watching them concede is the greatest reason to play Hearthstone. Hence why I prefer running it over Eater of Secrets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(V) (;,,;) (V)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A good tip for ending conversations.. avoid ALL sidenotes. If it doesn't pertain to the actual topic, resist the urge to comment on it.
For all of how large my posts get, I've had a LOT of times when I've had to gut several paragraphs out beforehand because I talked about something beside the point and realized I didn't want to get into a discussion about it.
Alternatively, if you want to leave the comment, and someone replied and you don't want to get into it... hit the back button.
Myself I've saved myself A LOT of typing by just reciting in a superhero tone "Someone is wrong on the internet!" It's a reminder that it's NOT THAT important to get into internet debates and that it's perfectly fine to let people be wrong or in a disagreement with you.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
I'd say Chief Inspector for the simple reason a 4/6 for 5 mana isn't as bad as a 2/4 for 4 mana.
Eater of Secrets needs an actual Secret in play just to be fairly statted and you won't always get that scenario. Chief Inspector is fine to play for the stats and has the additional bonus of being great against Secrets should there be any.
Sure, Eater of Secrets is great if you get multiple Secrets with it, but how common is that scenario? Chief Inspector will still kill off the Secrets, which is the primary reason to play these cards. Eater of Secrets being 1 mana cheaper is a plus for it though.
One is higher risk/reward, the other is more reliable in a generic sense. Given that only 3 classes really play Secrets (I'm not counting Rogue Secrets here) and even then they may not play them, I'd rather go for the reliable 4/6. Chief Inspector isn't dependant on the opponent having a Secret up to be a decent enough play.
Mathematically, there is nothing wrong with this logic and it sounds like it makes logical sense - until you consider the context of when you would play it in a game and how, etc.
But since you are likely to only ever play one of these in your deck (2 is usually overkill), you will naturally try and get the best value, so even if you just use it to kill off 2 secrets, then Eater of Secrets is instantly better, being a 4/6 for 4 mana rather than Chief Inspector who is a 4/6 for 5 mana.
And then as soon as you start eating any more secrets than that, the card becomes better and better.
A very common case in point for this consideration. Look at any hunter that plays spellstone. (Which if they are playing secrets, they almost all will).
In this common scenario, there is a strong likelihood that the hunter will have played at least 2 secrets by turn 5 for the spellstone. (Which is the earliest you would play the Inspector anyway without a coin). So there is a big likelihood of multiple spells.
Other examples include Secret Mage / Tempo mage. They often have dual spells on the board (Exploding Runes and Counterspell) by turn 5 or 6 as well.
counterspell
Hmm, I'm only considering Standard here (don't play Wild myself) so I maybe Secrets are being played even more there?
Personally I just don't like the idea of having a potentially weak card in my deck against a class that might not even have Secrets. And against a class that does have them, it's still a case of that they might use Secrets (granted, Mage/Hunter Secrets are common), but do you want to hold on to it then? What if it's your only Turn 4 play and there are no Secrets up? Is it a dead card unless your opponent plays a Secret?
Again I don't play Wild myself and I didn't see Eater of Secrets all that much in the previous year so maybe I haven't really seen how often it can be a powerful play.
To clarify, I am talking about Standard also - though EoS is obv a wild card now.
While not as popular, the mage secrets are still used in a selection of their decks - odd tempo mage for example uses them.
Against decks that have no secrets at all, it's not really here nor there - there are always better 4 drops than EoS and better 5 drops than CI. But neither are dead cards. A 2/4 on turn 4 isn't terrible. And neither is a 4/6 on turn 5. But 4-mana cards are notoriously less powerfull than their 5-mana brothers (as in, there are much better choices for other 5-drops than there are for other 4-drops when compared to each other). So losing a 5-drop space to a vanilla card is a much worse prospect than losing a 4-drop space - if you get what I'm saying.
However that all said, the most common class played currently in the Standard meta is Hunter. And of that the most popular version is Spell Hunter which is a secret-heavy deck. (After that, you have beast hunter and Secret Hunter which both use secrets as well (although BH only plays a couple different ones).
Them's words to live by, thank you.
(V) (;,,;) (V)
Literally no one is counting Rogue Secrets. I'm yet to come across a Rogue playing secrets yet.
(V) (;,,;) (V)
Imagine thinking flare wouldn't be ran in every class over a 5 mana 4/6 ayy le meow
Look, I want to tell you something because you're very dear to me. And I hope you understand that it comes from the bottom of my damaged, damaged heart. You are the finest piece of ass I've ever had and I don't care who knows it. I am so glad that I got to roam those hillsides.
I would argue that a 2/4 on turn 4 is far worse than a 4/6 on turn 5. The optimal turn 4 stats (not counting Overload) is the big boi Chillwind Yeti. Playing 2/3 a Chillwind Yeti is an awful tempo advantage. There are 2 drops with the same stats/potential stats (Vulgar Homunculus and Belligerent Gnome with 2 enemy minions.). Vulgar Homunculus sees/saw a lot of play in Warlock decks (particularly Zoo). There are 3 mana 2/4s too (Blackwing Technician, Deathspeaker, Pumpkin Peasant, Squirming Tentacle, Goblin Sapper, Illuminator, Lone Champion, Masked Contender and Brann Bronzebeard), and they all have upsides. And most of them never saw any play, because the upside wasn't worth it.
While a 5 mana 4/6 statline still isn't that good either (Consider Pit Fighter, which had no effect but couldn't be carried by its stats). It's closer to the "good stats" line than Eater of Secrets.
Ergo, I would far prefer playing a 5 mana 4/6 on curve than a 4 mana 2/4.
(V) (;,,;) (V)
You have anything to back that up or...?
(V) (;,,;) (V)
But that's taking the cards at face value as if they were vanilla. In which case I would totally agree with you that a 5 mana 4/6 would be better than a 4 mana 2/4. If that was the sole purpose of the card, you would be correct.
But these are tech cards versus a particular type of card. They are designed with their tech usage in mind. And that's the point of this discussion. On the basis of their tech usage and what they do, which is better?
And that takes us nicely back to the original point:
When you are up against a secret-based deck for which this card is included, where the likelihood is that there will be at least 2 secrets in play when you play this card, which is better?
A 4 mana 4/6 (possibly going up to even a 7/9) or a 5 mana 4/6?
Considering this part of the reply: "Against decks that have no secrets at all, it's not really here nor there - there are always better 4 drops than EoS and better 5 drops than CI. But neither are dead cards. A 2/4 on turn 4 isn't terrible. And neither is a 4/6 on turn 5." Hopefully it was understandable to see why I'd assume you started talking about their vanilla statline.
And I assure you, I know what the point of this discussion is, considering I made the thread. I also made it pretty clear I was talking about them in general, hence why I pointed out how how Eater of Secrets statline was easily the worst, and that Chief Inspector had easily the best basic statline, in the original post.
Because otherwise one could say "Well Eater of Secrets has the best effect for destroying secrets, and ends up being a 4 mana 7/9. Case is closed, everyone can go home." But there's more to these cards than just their ability to wipe secrets. It's also important that they not be completely dead cards on their own. Hence why I brought up their vanilla statlines both on the original post, and in this reply.
(V) (;,,;) (V)
Sure - but that was taking into effect the additional sub-value provided by their anti-tech usage. The benefit of their abilities when up against a secret-based deck outstrips the fact that the 4-drop is slightly weaker in a vanilla vacuum.
Yes of course - it was not intended to imply you didn't know the point of the dicussion - it was more to bring my own point back round to focussing on it rather than to get hung up on the cards themselves.
Having a worse statline doesn't make EoS a worse card in general. Only if it had no other effect on any match up. If you could guarantee that you wouldn't meet a secret then CI is better, sure. But then it would be pointless including either card rather than something better. So in a meta where secrets are widely used by the most popular decks, then EoS still wins for me.
The bottom line is that the decrease in power that EoS has from being a dead card is vastly outweighted by its much greater power when there are secrets available to be removed.
If you consider them just at face value, then you are better off playing neither. But if you take into consideration their potential power and value, EoS always wins.
Of course, I understand your point now.
It seems as though you agree with the general consensus that Eater of Secrets is easily the best of the tech cards. I think based on that and the votes, it's safe to say we've reached our winner.
It's just a shame more people don't like Kezan Mystic :((V) (;,,;) (V)
Yep, I do. :-) *thumbs up*
Actually, I do happen to like Kezan Mystic also. I don't think it is a bad card at all. In fact, I'd even consider it possibly better than Chief Inspector as well, if only because it feels more fun to nick someone's secrets than just destroy them.
I haven't given too much consideration to this particular comparison though (before that one kicks off, lol!).
In terms of standard, it was one of the very first discussions I kicked off back at the last rotation (once the first set of the new year was revealed), that we were effectively losing any really good anti-secret tech. Chief Inspector often feels lacking and I wish there were other options for classes other than Hunter, etc.
Complete bullshit. LMAO!!
Fun > Meta
LOL I made a secret strider deck when they first gave rogue secrets (which they shouldnt have, its a garbage mechanic). I have used cheat death in dr decks.
Fun > Meta
In the interest of not starting the argument again, I'm going to ask that you not do that. Even if I agree with you.
(V) (;,,;) (V)
Honestly. Stealing an Ice Block from a Quest Mage player and watching them concede is the greatest reason to play Hearthstone. Hence why I prefer running it over Eater of Secrets.
(V) (;,,;) (V)