Honestly, for the whole of Hearthstone, you have to look at Tracking from the perspective of what this game has in terms of the 'graveyard'/'discard'. Hearthstone has next to nothing in terms of graveyard interaction, and most of it requires the minion that was played to die first, with very little for the other things.
If Hearthstone had more graveyard/discard interaction like Yu-Gi-Oh, MTG, or Pokemon, then Tracking would be one of the most busted cards in this game, an odd combination of MTG's Brainstorm and Faithless Looting, or the ability of recent MTG card, Underrealm Lich (a 5 mana 4/3 that replaces every draw you would perform with tracking, look at your top 3 and choose 1, discard the other two). With basically no real graveyard, Tracking becomes a good card for an aggressive deck, allowing you to dig through your deck for the card you need in a situation, or maybe in a combo deck with only a few pieces, making them easier to get (unless you get really unlucky). I personally think that Hunter should not ever play Tracking though, there are better cards that draw or add cards for most of the Hunter decks, ranging from various deathrattle minions to cards like Master's Call, Secret Plan, and Quick Shot (though this one is Wild only), all of them conditional, but still better than Tracking in my opinion.
Overall, Tracking sucks, OP isn't wrong, and this thread exploded in three days, hot damn.
Honestly, for the whole of Hearthstone, you have to look at Tracking from the perspective of what this game has in terms of the 'graveyard'/'discard'. Hearthstone has next to nothing in terms of graveyard interaction, and most of it requires the minion that was played to die first, with very little for the other things.
If Hearthstone had more graveyard/discard interaction like Yu-Gi-Oh, MTG, or Pokemon, then Tracking would be one of the most busted cards in this game, an odd combination of MTG's Brainstorm and Faithless Looting, or the ability of recent MTG card, Underrealm Lich (a 5 mana 4/3 that replaces every draw you would perform with tracking, look at your top 3 and choose 1, discard the other two).
Small point of nitpick: more graveyard mechanics wouldn't matter. If Hearthstone was a physical game, 'burned' cards (cards destroyed from the deck via Tracking or Void Contract) would go into a separate pile from the Discard and Graveyard piles. Thus nothing that interacts with the graveyard would be able to affect them. We effectively have a Deck, a hand, a board, a Graveyard, a Discard, and a Burned pile used on a regular basis. Just not manipulated much in play.
Though that does mean you CAN have cards that affect JUST them. Such as "Draw 3 cards that were Destroyed". We could also have a sort of Exile. For example, you could have a card that says "place this card into your deck, then Destroy it." In theory we could also have cards that remove cards from the Graveyard/Discard, but we don't have that mechanic yet so we'd need a new term for it. Though that's easy: Banish, Exile (Rush proves we aren't ashamed of stealing names), Void (if you want a WoW theme).
If we ever want to get complicated, Hearthstone can get really, REALLY #()$#)( complicated. "Draw 1 card that has Died, 1 card that has been Burned, and 1 card that has been Discarded this game. Play them, then put this card in the deck and Destroy it and a card from the opponent's deck that matches the mana cost of this card."
With basically no real graveyard, Tracking becomes a good card for an aggressive deck, allowing you to dig through your deck for the card you need in a situation, or maybe in a combo deck with only a few pieces, making them easier to get (unless you get really unlucky). I personally think that Hunter should not ever play Tracking though, there are better cards that draw or add cards for most of the Hunter decks, ranging from various deathrattle minions to cards like Master's Call, Secret Plan, and Quick Shot (though this one is Wild only), all of them conditional, but still better than Tracking in my opinion.
Overall, Tracking sucks, OP isn't wrong, and this thread exploded in three days, hot damn.
In beast decks, you CAN'T use non-beast minions, already have Master's Call, and Secret Plan works against your strategy nad won't pull the cards you need. Tracking is cheap enough to fit in, lets you draw the card you need much more reliability, and the deck only has one MUST HAVE so you don't get the "too many good cards" situation.
In Secret Decks, you can't use minions or Master's Call and you already have Secret Plan. There's more possible bad outcomes but in most cases, you can find a winning line (if you get DK and spellstone, either you have 2 secrets and know you can win with a spellstone follow-up, or you probably needed that DK since your early game won't win it out so might as well).
You're HEAVILY thinking of Deathrattle when you're picturing this it feels like which is why you dislike the card, since it's not as good in Deathrattle and, if you're the slower type, a bad pick. But we're talking about a class where most of their decks are aggressive with just ONE card that represents its entire end game. You even said that it's GOOD in such situations.
Tracking doesn't need to be 100% busted to be worthwhile. It's in a good spot power level wise, especially since it's an evergreen card.
Stitched Tracker seems a much safer way of getting that Leeroy Jenkins or King Krush finisher you need, in my view. I've always liked the option. Of course, that doesn't work so well in a really restricted deck like Spell Hunter or Master's Call Hunter - but that's the choice you make, I think.
Stitched Tracker seems a much safer way of getting that Leeroy Jenkins or King Krush finisher you need, in my view. I've always liked the option. Of course, that doesn't work so well in a really restricted deck like Spell Hunter or Master's Call Hunter - but that's the choice you make, I think.
Stitched works better in Deathrattle Hunter yes. The other hunters are either too restrictive or would much rather draw a spell/DK than spending 3 mana on a single card draw and a bad 2/2.
It's about what deck you are using, and the decks Hunter is using now, other than Deathrattle, suits Tracking well.
I understand the value of the multi-card draw - but I can't justify the 1 mana to draw 1 card mechanic as a standalone entity. You're spending one mana to draw the card you would've drawn if you didn't have the 1 mana draw 1 card in deck! :)
Imagine : u go Tracking and see cards like Kill Command, Candleshot and DK. Its just 3 top cards. And this Kill Command u are looking for lethal, can be 2nd or 3rd top card. So u can "skip" 2 turns that can help opponent to heal and get out of Kill Command lethal range, and kill him right now.
So its not the same as u dont play tracking in a deck and get useless Candleshot drawn, when u can get Kill Command which will come 2 turns later
My only issue with Tracking is that the wording is weird (it's not really discard) and that it's rather complicated for a basic card. Apart from that, lt seems fine to me.
Honestly, for the whole of Hearthstone, you have to look at Tracking from the perspective of what this game has in terms of the 'graveyard'/'discard'. Hearthstone has next to nothing in terms of graveyard interaction, and most of it requires the minion that was played to die first, with very little for the other things.
If Hearthstone had more graveyard/discard interaction like Yu-Gi-Oh, MTG, or Pokemon, then Tracking would be one of the most busted cards in this game, an odd combination of MTG's Brainstorm and Faithless Looting, or the ability of recent MTG card, Underrealm Lich (a 5 mana 4/3 that replaces every draw you would perform with tracking, look at your top 3 and choose 1, discard the other two). With basically no real graveyard, Tracking becomes a good card for an aggressive deck, allowing you to dig through your deck for the card you need in a situation, or maybe in a combo deck with only a few pieces, making them easier to get (unless you get really unlucky). I personally think that Hunter should not ever play Tracking though, there are better cards that draw or add cards for most of the Hunter decks, ranging from various deathrattle minions to cards like Master's Call, Secret Plan, and Quick Shot (though this one is Wild only), all of them conditional, but still better than Tracking in my opinion.
Overall, Tracking sucks, OP isn't wrong, and this thread exploded in three days, hot damn.
The problem is a lot of times you want to actually get cards out of your deck, cause Hunter usually wants to play with a deck with less than 30 cards(but he cant cause we dont get to choose the deck size), that is why Tracking is good ; Tracking lets you play with a deck with less than 30 cards from certain POV.Quick Shotis beyond bad as a card draw.
1 ) It is targeted draw in Hunter (which sucks at drawing big time, they have to run all beasts because Master's Call offers them so much draws after starving for a while in that department).
2 ) It's cheap cycling that is playable on later stages of the turn (think of it as a 1-drop that leaves a minion like Firefly, it's so good because it does more the just being an efficient 1-drop). You can develop a Springpaw on turn 1 and keep tracking, or cast tracking if you lack the 1-drop to find better options to help you win back the board.
Targeted draw + being a cheap card to fill a low tempo turn makes this card quite good.
The downside is real, but I mean most games end up with a winner and two decks with cards still waiting to be drawed and played on both sides So the downside is real, but only affects you in a low array of games.
My only issue with Tracking is that the wording is weird (it's not really discard) and that it's rather complicated for a basic card. Apart from that, lt seems fine to me.
It mostly is the animation not matching the wording to be fair. Tracking was the first discover attempt if you consider it for a moment.
The animation should technically makes you draw cards, then show them as the discover mechanic, then make you pick one, then discard the two others (while showing them to your opponent if we follow the discard mechanic that Warlock has).
Now it would be correct (and still the same effect, with the added visual + actually showing what you drawed out of your deck to not pick from).
IF Tracking's text was something like "Pick three cards from your deck....." as iandakar elaborated, then Tracking would be a no-brainer. But because it's the top three, the value of the card is essentially "does one card now at the expense of two others provide me with more value than all three cards over the subsequent three turns" - and that is purely situational.
Assuming you meant to say "Pick one of three random cards from your deck", can you elaborate on why you think this to be true?
I'll clue you in that some of the strong responses here probably come from MtG players, since it's been widely accepted, for probably over a decade, that there's no difference between the top or the bottom of the deck, as long as noone has any information about cards in the deck (ie. It matters if you definitively know an important card is at the bottom of the deck in this match, because it should affect your playstyle). This doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, but I'm trying to wrap my head around why I would care about the cards being burned off the top or randomly.
As far as I can tell from the quoted paragraph, you're worrying about burning cards in a specific instance where it may or may not turn out that cards drawn anyway may have mattered on their own (moreso than the next 2 drawn cards, which is now 2 further into a pile you have no information of). As a sidenote, it's important to remember we would not have been 1 card deeper into these 3 cards in the absence of Tracking, merely with another card that, presumably, does not interact with the next 3 cards in the deck.
At the same time you mentioned earlier that... "You've got an equal chance of thinning out the deck in favour of your situation, and thinning out the deck in a detrimental way. Sure if the deck is weighted more to the early or late game you have a higher probability of thinning out to that part of the curve, but overall statistically there should be no net benefit to thinning the deck as all cards are random." Which leads me back to the notion that over the course of many games, the cards burned have no inherently favorable or detrimental outcomes, no matter where they came from in the deck. However! They share the common traits that (1) you decided which were burned, and (2) that they were, in fact, burned and cannot be drawn in this game. This is a degree of information which these cards will never provide you simply residing in the deck.
Edit: I have no clue how to format quotes on this site. RIP.
Great response, thanks!
I guess my reasoning initially is that while the deck is unknown, AFTER the match the deck IS known up to x point. Thus retrospectively I can analyse my replays and determine whether or not playing Tracking at turn y proved a better decision than drawing out the next 3 turns. Same way you analyse whether playing any other card is beneficial when you analyse your games. This wouldn't be possible if Tracking drew 3 "random" cards. Now whether this is an effective way to analyse the impact of Tracking or not is still up for debate.
Second point - you bring up a good point there in that while statistically across the entirety of play Tracking will draw as many favourable as unfavourable outcomes, you will statistically skew that in your favour with the choices you make from the three cards given. An ugly way to assess it's value, but worth a consideration.
I think iandakar and scorpyon have done well summarising the value of Tracking - which ends up confusing me even more LOL :D
I understand the value of the multi-card draw - but I can't justify the 1 mana to draw 1 card mechanic as a standalone entity. You're spending one mana to draw the card you would've drawn if you didn't have the 1 mana draw 1 card in deck! :)
Imagine : u go Tracking and see cards like Kill Command, Candleshot and DK. Its just 3 top cards. And this Kill Command u are looking for lethal, can be 2nd or 3rd top card. So u can "skip" 2 turns that can help opponent to heal and get out of Kill Command lethal range, and kill him right now.
So its not the same as u dont play tracking in a deck and get useless Candleshot drawn, when u can get Kill Command which will come 2 turns later
That's very situational, and of course favourable to Tracking. It doesn't always play out like this, but it's definitely a reason to have the card in the deck.
If we ever want to get complicated, Hearthstone can get really, REALLY #()$#)( complicated. "Draw 1 card that has Died, 1 card that has been Burned, and 1 card that has been Discarded this game. Play them, then put this card in the deck and Destroy it and a card from the opponent's deck that matches the mana cost of this card."
PLEASE NO!!!!
You're HEAVILY thinking of Deathrattle when you're picturing this it feels like which is why you dislike the card, since it's not as good in Deathrattle and, if you're the slower type, a bad pick. But we're talking about a class where most of their decks are aggressive with just ONE card that represents its entire end game. You even said that it's GOOD in such situations.
Tracking doesn't need to be 100% busted to be worthwhile. It's in a good spot power level wise, especially since it's an evergreen card.
Interestingly I started this thread primarily considering Deathrattle Hunter.
PS - "Beast Hunter" is any of those cancerous fn decks running Master's Call yeah? I've been recording them as "Midrange Hunter" on my spreadsheet, but they feel far from Midrange! HSreplay should be adding that archetype IMO
If we ever want to get complicated, Hearthstone can get really, REALLY #()$#)( complicated. "Draw 1 card that has Died, 1 card that has been Burned, and 1 card that has been Discarded this game. Play them, then put this card in the deck and Destroy it and a card from the opponent's deck that matches the mana cost of this card."
PLEASE NO!!!!
Haha! As bonkers as this card sounds (and complicated), I actually love cards that have this sort of variety of effects, because they are the sort of thing that drives creativity in deck creation. That's where cards like Genn and Baku (and previously Reno, etc) should (and sometimes did) shine. Unfortunately the Odd / Even mechanic has been poorly supported / restricted. (That's another thread conversation though)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Honestly, for the whole of Hearthstone, you have to look at Tracking from the perspective of what this game has in terms of the 'graveyard'/'discard'. Hearthstone has next to nothing in terms of graveyard interaction, and most of it requires the minion that was played to die first, with very little for the other things.
If Hearthstone had more graveyard/discard interaction like Yu-Gi-Oh, MTG, or Pokemon, then Tracking would be one of the most busted cards in this game, an odd combination of MTG's Brainstorm and Faithless Looting, or the ability of recent MTG card, Underrealm Lich (a 5 mana 4/3 that replaces every draw you would perform with tracking, look at your top 3 and choose 1, discard the other two).
With basically no real graveyard, Tracking becomes a good card for an aggressive deck, allowing you to dig through your deck for the card you need in a situation, or maybe in a combo deck with only a few pieces, making them easier to get (unless you get really unlucky).
I personally think that Hunter should not ever play Tracking though, there are better cards that draw or add cards for most of the Hunter decks, ranging from various deathrattle minions to cards like Master's Call, Secret Plan, and Quick Shot (though this one is Wild only), all of them conditional, but still better than Tracking in my opinion.
Overall, Tracking sucks, OP isn't wrong, and this thread exploded in three days, hot damn.
Small point of nitpick: more graveyard mechanics wouldn't matter. If Hearthstone was a physical game, 'burned' cards (cards destroyed from the deck via Tracking or Void Contract) would go into a separate pile from the Discard and Graveyard piles. Thus nothing that interacts with the graveyard would be able to affect them. We effectively have a Deck, a hand, a board, a Graveyard, a Discard, and a Burned pile used on a regular basis. Just not manipulated much in play.
Though that does mean you CAN have cards that affect JUST them. Such as "Draw 3 cards that were Destroyed". We could also have a sort of Exile. For example, you could have a card that says "place this card into your deck, then Destroy it." In theory we could also have cards that remove cards from the Graveyard/Discard, but we don't have that mechanic yet so we'd need a new term for it. Though that's easy: Banish, Exile (Rush proves we aren't ashamed of stealing names), Void (if you want a WoW theme).
If we ever want to get complicated, Hearthstone can get really, REALLY #()$#)( complicated. "Draw 1 card that has Died, 1 card that has been Burned, and 1 card that has been Discarded this game. Play them, then put this card in the deck and Destroy it and a card from the opponent's deck that matches the mana cost of this card."
In beast decks, you CAN'T use non-beast minions, already have Master's Call, and Secret Plan works against your strategy nad won't pull the cards you need. Tracking is cheap enough to fit in, lets you draw the card you need much more reliability, and the deck only has one MUST HAVE so you don't get the "too many good cards" situation.
In Secret Decks, you can't use minions or Master's Call and you already have Secret Plan. There's more possible bad outcomes but in most cases, you can find a winning line (if you get DK and spellstone, either you have 2 secrets and know you can win with a spellstone follow-up, or you probably needed that DK since your early game won't win it out so might as well).
You're HEAVILY thinking of Deathrattle when you're picturing this it feels like which is why you dislike the card, since it's not as good in Deathrattle and, if you're the slower type, a bad pick. But we're talking about a class where most of their decks are aggressive with just ONE card that represents its entire end game. You even said that it's GOOD in such situations.
Tracking doesn't need to be 100% busted to be worthwhile. It's in a good spot power level wise, especially since it's an evergreen card.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Tracking is the best card ever designed for Hunter.
Both for effectiveness and flavour: you choose your path at the crossroads, leaving the other options behind you.
"Greetings, Traveler"
I prefer Stitched Tracker plus 2-3 one off tech minions I can search for situationally. Feels better than tracking.
Actually I would like if Stitched Tracker was promoted to a classic set. It fits nicely with Hunter archetype and would be ok card to have around.
Stitched Tracker seems a much safer way of getting that Leeroy Jenkins or King Krush finisher you need, in my view. I've always liked the option.
Of course, that doesn't work so well in a really restricted deck like Spell Hunter or Master's Call Hunter - but that's the choice you make, I think.
Stitched works better in Deathrattle Hunter yes. The other hunters are either too restrictive or would much rather draw a spell/DK than spending 3 mana on a single card draw and a bad 2/2.
It's about what deck you are using, and the decks Hunter is using now, other than Deathrattle, suits Tracking well.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Imagine : u go Tracking and see cards like Kill Command, Candleshot and DK. Its just 3 top cards. And this Kill Command u are looking for lethal, can be 2nd or 3rd top card. So u can "skip" 2 turns that can help opponent to heal and get out of Kill Command lethal range, and kill him right now.
So its not the same as u dont play tracking in a deck and get useless Candleshot drawn, when u can get Kill Command which will come 2 turns later
My only issue with Tracking is that the wording is weird (it's not really discard) and that it's rather complicated for a basic card. Apart from that, lt seems fine to me.
Custom cards :
CLASSES : Alchemist (CCC#5 | Phase V) | Chef (CCC#4)
EXPANSIONS : Year of the Scorpion (Year Comp)
The problem is a lot of times you want to actually get cards out of your deck, cause Hunter usually wants to play with a deck with less than 30 cards(but he cant cause we dont get to choose the deck size), that is why Tracking is good ; Tracking lets you play with a deck with less than 30 cards from certain POV.Quick Shotis beyond bad as a card draw.
Two things that'll change your mind.
1 ) It is targeted draw in Hunter (which sucks at drawing big time, they have to run all beasts because Master's Call offers them so much draws after starving for a while in that department).
2 ) It's cheap cycling that is playable on later stages of the turn (think of it as a 1-drop that leaves a minion like Firefly, it's so good because it does more the just being an efficient 1-drop). You can develop a Springpaw on turn 1 and keep tracking, or cast tracking if you lack the 1-drop to find better options to help you win back the board.
Targeted draw + being a cheap card to fill a low tempo turn makes this card quite good.
The downside is real, but I mean most games end up with a winner and two decks with cards still waiting to be drawed and played on both sides So the downside is real, but only affects you in a low array of games.
It mostly is the animation not matching the wording to be fair. Tracking was the first discover attempt if you consider it for a moment.
The animation should technically makes you draw cards, then show them as the discover mechanic, then make you pick one, then discard the two others (while showing them to your opponent if we follow the discard mechanic that Warlock has).
Now it would be correct (and still the same effect, with the added visual + actually showing what you drawed out of your deck to not pick from).
Great response, thanks!
I guess my reasoning initially is that while the deck is unknown, AFTER the match the deck IS known up to x point. Thus retrospectively I can analyse my replays and determine whether or not playing Tracking at turn y proved a better decision than drawing out the next 3 turns. Same way you analyse whether playing any other card is beneficial when you analyse your games. This wouldn't be possible if Tracking drew 3 "random" cards. Now whether this is an effective way to analyse the impact of Tracking or not is still up for debate.
Second point - you bring up a good point there in that while statistically across the entirety of play Tracking will draw as many favourable as unfavourable outcomes, you will statistically skew that in your favour with the choices you make from the three cards given. An ugly way to assess it's value, but worth a consideration.
I think iandakar and scorpyon have done well summarising the value of Tracking - which ends up confusing me even more LOL :D
That's very situational, and of course favourable to Tracking. It doesn't always play out like this, but it's definitely a reason to have the card in the deck.
PLEASE NO!!!!
Interestingly I started this thread primarily considering Deathrattle Hunter.
PS - "Beast Hunter" is any of those cancerous fn decks running Master's Call yeah? I've been recording them as "Midrange Hunter" on my spreadsheet, but they feel far from Midrange! HSreplay should be adding that archetype IMO
Haha! As bonkers as this card sounds (and complicated), I actually love cards that have this sort of variety of effects, because they are the sort of thing that drives creativity in deck creation.
That's where cards like Genn and Baku (and previously Reno, etc) should (and sometimes did) shine. Unfortunately the Odd / Even mechanic has been poorly supported / restricted. (That's another thread conversation though)