Hunter is definitely too strong right now, but I'm personally not complaining. If we look at VS, we can see that hunter is dominating against most match-ups it has.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hon. BSc. Medical Physics University of Toronto Class of 2017
The main point against a Zul'jin nerf, which has been debated already is that "Zul'jin needs set-up for it to be OP" -> Well, hunter decks not running Zul'jin, run the same set of spells usually as those running him. On their own, the hunter spells are good enough. Zul'jin essentially magnifies that with his effect. I would argue that Zul'jin acts as both a tempo swing, removal tool, and a way to set up lethal for the next turn.
I disagree with you. I do feel that Zul'Jin is strong, but a 10 mana play is a 10 mana play: It better be good. Zul'Jin, although not ENTIRELY randomly, still slings spells at its own face, minions, and does them in an order sometimes that is more a detrimental turn 10 play than say another copy of unleash the beast in your hand plus more removal. Hunter has weaknesses: little to no natural healing, virtually no way outside of the hero card to gain armor, minion based removal spells or random chance removal aside from Marked Shot now. You're choosing to put the blame on the card because you likely matched a Hunter and he pulled the win with Zul'jin after every spell miraculously went in order and favorably changed the board...maybe one time too many for your fortune. Shudderwock currently finishes the game in its use. It doesn't set up a lethal turn- it outright battlecries the damage where the damage needs to go thanks to doubling up on Lifedrinkers. It creates a one mana option at the very least that either finishes the job or stabilizes without fault in some cases just like Zul'Jin. The best hunter spell is a 3 mana removal and even that is random effect. Unleash for 6 is piss poor as a rushing 5/5 is usually not the most efficient answer when needed. It lives with 2-3 health on average and is easily answered the next turn. At worst, it hits divine shield as your only mechanic to open the window for a decent trade. I don't think Zul'Jin now, or ever, needs to be changed or nerfed. Hunter is right where it needs to be, and if the meta wanted to counter it then it would die off like any other deck. All of you love Mage and Warrior so face the consequence of the answer.
The main point against a Zul'jin nerf, which has been debated already is that "Zul'jin needs set-up for it to be OP" -> Well, hunter decks not running Zul'jin, run the same set of spells usually as those running him. On their own, the hunter spells are good enough. Zul'jin essentially magnifies that with his effect. I would argue that Zul'jin acts as both a tempo swing, removal tool, and a way to set up lethal for the next turn.
I disagree with you. I do feel that Zul'Jin is strong, but a 10 mana play is a 10 mana play: It better be good. Zul'Jin, although not ENTIRELY randomly, still slings spells at its own face, minions, and does them in an order sometimes that is more a detrimental turn 10 play than say another copy of unleash the beast in your hand plus more removal. Hunter has weaknesses: little to no natural healing, virtually no way outside of the hero card to gain armor, minion based removal spells or random chance removal aside from Marked Shot now. You're choosing to put the blame on the card because you likely matched a Hunter and he pulled the win with Zul'jin after every spell miraculously went in order and favorably changed the board...maybe one time too many for your fortune. Shudderwock currently finishes the game in its use. It doesn't set up a lethal turn- it outright battlecries the damage where the damage needs to go thanks to doubling up on Lifedrinkers. It creates a one mana option at the very least that either finishes the job or stabilizes without fault in some cases just like Zul'Jin. The best hunter spell is a 3 mana removal and even that is random effect. Unleash for 6 is piss poor as a rushing 5/5 is usually not the most efficient answer when needed. It lives with 2-3 health on average and is easily answered the next turn. At worst, it hits divine shield as your only mechanic to open the window for a decent trade. I don't think Zul'Jin now, or ever, needs to be changed or nerfed. Hunter is right where it needs to be, and if the meta wanted to counter it then it would die off like any other deck. All of you love Mage and Warrior so face the consequence of the answer.
I'm going to agree to disagree. I've already stated in the thread I linked about why Zul'jin is problematic, to me. Many people (most) agree, just the same way most agreed that Luna's at 5 mana was game-defining. ZUl'jin, irrespective of the mana cost to use him, is game-defining. If you can't beat the hunter before turn 10, you're most likely going to lose. Zuljin offers, in ONE turn (i.e. when you play him): 1. Clearing your opponent's board 2. Setting up your own board 3. Refilling your own hand 4. Setting up lethal for next turn
If, me, the opponent has set-up lethal for next turn, one card being played (Zul'jin) shouldn't be able to nullify that lethal set-up while also setting up lethal for the person playing it, and also provide stability.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hon. BSc. Medical Physics University of Toronto Class of 2017
The main point against a Zul'jin nerf, which has been debated already is that "Zul'jin needs set-up for it to be OP" -> Well, hunter decks not running Zul'jin, run the same set of spells usually as those running him. On their own, the hunter spells are good enough. Zul'jin essentially magnifies that with his effect. I would argue that Zul'jin acts as both a tempo swing, removal tool, and a way to set up lethal for the next turn.
I disagree with you. I do feel that Zul'Jin is strong, but a 10 mana play is a 10 mana play: It better be good. Zul'Jin, although not ENTIRELY randomly, still slings spells at its own face, minions, and does them in an order sometimes that is more a detrimental turn 10 play than say another copy of unleash the beast in your hand plus more removal. Hunter has weaknesses: little to no natural healing, virtually no way outside of the hero card to gain armor, minion based removal spells or random chance removal aside from Marked Shot now. You're choosing to put the blame on the card because you likely matched a Hunter and he pulled the win with Zul'jin after every spell miraculously went in order and favorably changed the board...maybe one time too many for your fortune. Shudderwock currently finishes the game in its use. It doesn't set up a lethal turn- it outright battlecries the damage where the damage needs to go thanks to doubling up on Lifedrinkers. It creates a one mana option at the very least that either finishes the job or stabilizes without fault in some cases just like Zul'Jin. The best hunter spell is a 3 mana removal and even that is random effect. Unleash for 6 is piss poor as a rushing 5/5 is usually not the most efficient answer when needed. It lives with 2-3 health on average and is easily answered the next turn. At worst, it hits divine shield as your only mechanic to open the window for a decent trade. I don't think Zul'Jin now, or ever, needs to be changed or nerfed. Hunter is right where it needs to be, and if the meta wanted to counter it then it would die off like any other deck. All of you love Mage and Warrior so face the consequence of the answer.
I'm going to agree to disagree. I've already stated in the thread I linked about why Zul'jin is problematic, to me. Many people (most) agree, just the same way most agreed that Luna's at 5 mana was game-defining. ZUl'jin, irrespective of the mana cost to use him, is game-defining. If you can't beat the hunter before turn 10, you're most likely going to lose. Zuljin offers, in ONE turn (i.e. when you play him): 1. Clearing your opponent's board 2. Setting up your own board 3. Refilling your own hand 4. Setting up lethal for next turn
If, me, the opponent has set-up lethal for next turn, one card being played (Zul'jin) shouldn't be able to nullify that lethal set-up while also setting up lethal for the person playing it, and also provide stability.
Agreeing to disagree is perfectly fine. I'm voicing the opposition because Blizzard does, occasionally, care about what people say about cards and I feel that many will disagree with you and see my or other's points to keep the card the way it is. I think most is an overstatement. I've been that person typing a card into google with some "hate tag" attached to it to see where people are complaining so I can join in. It's pretty easy to find people who agree on threads built for it. For purpose of arguing against this point further, because nerfing the card is your goal and preserving it is mine:
1. Zul'Jin and Luna's Pocket Galaxy are NOT in the same bracket of cards. Zul'Jin is like Bloodreaver Guldan or Puzzle Box. The random order effect nature of Puzzle Box mixed with the "revive" of certain cards/minions like Guldan. Pocket Galaxy isn't a "roll the dice for a save" card. You don't play it to try to survive or turn the game, you play it to secure an absurd level of mana cheat EARLY in the game. Early versus late and permanent mana cheat on cards not meant to experience it vs a stability dice roll.
2. "If you can't beat Hunter by turn 10, you are most likely going to lose." Prove this. Show some stats. You can't just say this because you don't like the card. I have lost PLENTY of games after turn 10 to control decks that got there against me. This being regardless of the Zul'Jin play because I needed to use it at the right moment and still lost.
3. Your bold point. Yes playing a 10 cost card SHOULD stop your lethal if it is a legendary and built to do so. It DOES NOT guarantee a lethal set up for the Hunter, as it's played winrate is currently 59% and 61% in the two highest winrate Hunter decks. Therefore it successfully closes/turns the game the low majority of the time- including times where you already had a decent chance to win and needed a finisher. It does offer stability, but I did just compare it to a card of the same mana cost that in its meta rotation brought back 1-3 Void Lords with taunt that made more taunt minions. This card TRULY knocked you out of the game with up to 75% winrate on play recorded average. (All data on HSReplay).
I'm not trying to attack you personally, you're making your point and showing experiences of why you don't like the card. However, I think it is irresponsible to let posts like that go without debate or opposition because Blizzard DOES watch and I would hate for this card to get thrown into the nerf table just because a few people had bad experiences against it. If you bring data to the table that proves something otherwise I am welcoming it.
I have a really big collection but never pulled Zul'Jin and since I don't play Hunter that often haven't felt the need to craft him. I think it's a pretty fair card. It can RNG backfire and whilst it's a big swing play it's by no means a done deal every time you see him at turn 10.
A very strong effect but not broken IMO. There are way more issues outside of Zul'Jin and this is coming from a non-Hunter player.
I don't have the data, Blizzard does. I stand by my points made, the same way you stand by yours. I crafted Zul'jin because I legitimately couldn't beat the Zul'jin hunter decks out there, and so I decided, if you can't beat them, join them. My win rate against control has drastically increased on pen and paper, which I do keep track of.
While it suffers against aggro, it has an almost unchallenged win against control.
1. As to why I pointed that out, it's because usually if most players feel something is off with a card, it turns out to be true - as I said, Blizzard holds the stats and I'll let Blizzard decide how they want to proceed. While it isn't as game-changing as Luna's, when Zul'jin is played, the chances your opponent will win is drastically reduced because up until Zul'jin is played, you still have to deal with the annoying spells hunters have in their arsenal, and some spells given insane value (See the card that buffs a beast by +3/+3 and adds 3 copies to your deck), or hunter's pack, for hand refill, not to mention deadly shot - for board removal, the twinspell that summons a 5/5 wyvern with Rush (for board removal and a minion generated on the board), and animal companion (which alone is absurd).
2. My pen and paper tracks show I've lost to every hunter that has played Zul'jin on curve. Maybe yours doesn't show that, but I can keep track online from now on if you'd like. I'd be more than happy too - however, I think VS in the comin week will show that hunter will increase in winrate from its already high winrate against control.
3. It should do one or the other. As it is right now, it does a guarantee of 3 strong plays. Here they are: Refills your hand (guaranteed), creates minions on your board (guaranteed), and prevents lethal (armor alone and secret play will stop you from getting killed the next turn). Now, if it did one of those, I'd be fine...but it does those 3 AND it also has a very high chance at clearing your opponents board so that this late in the game, they will not be able to make a comeback, and also adds cards to your deck to prevent fatigue.
And don't worry man, I know you aren't attacking me personally. I actually do want us to continue this discussion, and hope more people join in to give their opinions, perspectives, and so forth. These kinds of discussions are healthy and necessary for the game, and I'm certain Blizzard appreciates it too, as long as it's being conducted in a respective manner, and you haven't shown any disrespect, so I'm more than happy to continue discussing this card with you.
I read your initial response, and I saw that you did admit it is a strong card. I am trying to say that it is slightly more than that. I would say it is an extremely strong card that at least warrants a look.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hon. BSc. Medical Physics University of Toronto Class of 2017
Hey I appreciate that at the least that you recognize its just a debate even if we don't see eye to eye. If you aren't using HS Replay I would highly suggest you follow it on online and use the hearthstone Decktracker add-on as well. It allows for note tabs on your decks themselves, and lays out percentages of class match-ups as you encounter them. It is truly data driven. Sometimes this is good, other times it can be misleading numbers. However, I really like the mulligan, mulligan win-rate, and mulligan play-rate stats that it provides. They really give a snapshot of the "when" of card balance. Also for perspective, are you playing the highlander or full secret version of the deck? I'd also like to, in spirit of the thread, offer Dinotamer Brann in Zul'Jin's place lol. A whopping 72.2% played win-rate. This card on the coin against control is the definition of a shutdown and I do think there is a problem.
I wonder why they don't get rid of people who whine like a cry-baby. I'm so sick of all these threads that screaming after nerfs because they can't handle some classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Det är bättre med en fågel i hand, än tiger i träd!
Hey I appreciate that at the least that you recognize its just a debate even if we don't see eye to eye. If you aren't using HS Replay I would highly suggest you follow it on online and use the hearthstone Decktracker add-on as well. It allows for note tabs on your decks themselves, and lays out percentages of class match-ups as you encounter them. It is truly data driven. Sometimes this is good, other times it can be misleading numbers. However, I really like the mulligan, mulligan win-rate, and mulligan play-rate stats that it provides. They really give a snapshot of the "when" of card balance. Also for perspective, are you playing the highlander or full secret version of the deck? I'd also like to, in spirit of the thread, offer Dinotamer Brann in Zul'Jin's place lol. A whopping 72.2% played win-rate. This card on the coin against control is the definition of a shutdown and I do think there is a problem.
Got HS Replay/decktracker and going to set it up today. Hoping to message you some good statistics you can work with (or even make a thread and post them in there for people to look over).
I'm playing the Highlander version, I try to aim to play Zephrys before I play zul'jin, and I play Zephrys to fish for a strong board clear spell. For example, Turn 9 Zephrys for a flamestrike. Flamestrike that same turn (7 mana). Turn 10 Zul'jin.
Practically guarantees you clear the opponents board.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hon. BSc. Medical Physics University of Toronto Class of 2017
I wonder why they don't get rid of people who whine like a cry-baby. I'm so sick of all these threads that screaming after nerfs because they can't handle some classes.
Are you for real? It's because freedom of speech is one of the few wonders the free world has to offer and must be respected at all cost, mr. dictator...
Man, this was such a nice feeling haha Edit: Rank 15 to 10 bracket. Can't see the rank because I'm playing on my phone - and for those that don't know, I took a screenshot of this and then sent it to my email and opened it on my PC.
Hey bro. Couldn't but notice the image you uploaded there. Featuring the iconic Zul'jin hunter hero card. Right after advocating that it's a problematic card that should be nerfed. Would you mind posting those statistics you mentioned earlier, or will you stick with the anecdotal casual game screencaps?
Hey bro. Couldn't but notice the image you uploaded there. Featuring the iconic Zul'jin hunter hero card. Right after advocating that it's a problematic card that should be nerfed. Would you mind posting those statistics you mentioned earlier, or will you stick with the anecdotal casual game screencaps?
haha
It should be nerfed in my opinion, I already explained why numerous times. And I literally got HSReplay last night as a recommendation from a fellow member on here, so the win streak I have so far on it would mean nothing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hon. BSc. Medical Physics University of Toronto Class of 2017
Hey bro. Couldn't but notice the image you uploaded there. Featuring the iconic Zul'jin hunter hero card. Right after advocating that it's a problematic card that should be nerfed. Would you mind posting those statistics you mentioned earlier, or will you stick with the anecdotal casual game screencaps?
haha
Also, that "haha" you put at the end there, doesn't really do anything but make you look immature. I looked you up, to see if you had any other posts, and you don't. So, if you're coming in here to sabotage someone else's thread (this isn't my thread by the way) to get a reaction from me, you'll leave empty handed.
Also, that wasn't in casual. It was in the ranked 10 to 15 bracket. If you play on your phone, you'd know that you can't see the ranking number in ranked play during the game. You also know it's on my phone because of the way the game board is set up.
Nerfs are axiomatic and central to card design philosophy Blizzard employs for Hearthstone. Here is the axiom: nerfs are relocated to classes that keep the meta polarized. Hunter is one of the key classes to keep the meta polarized (together with rogue, murloc shaman/paladin: aggressive, skill-low /strategy-low). On the other hand of the equation: control decks from Warrior and Mage.
Keeping the meta polarized is the core reason for nerfs and other so called 'balance changes.' Therefore perfectly understandable that Hunter isn't nerfed. Consequences are dire: lack of proper balance, classes falling from ladder, low skill floor....but who cares? Everything for the easy winfix therefore pack selling: serving the target audience.
Marketing based card design counters skill based card design.
Marketing rules the nerf meta, not skill and strategy.
Nerfs are axiomatic and central to card design philosophy Blizzard employes for Hearthstone. Here is the axiom: nerfs are relocated to classes that keep the meta polarized. Hunter is one of the key classes to keep the meta polarized (together with rogue, merloc shaman/paladin: aggressive, skill-low /strategy-low). On the other hand of the equation: control decks from Warrior and Mage.
Keeping the meta polarized is the core reason for nerfs and other so called 'balance changes.' Therefore perfectly understandable that Hunter isn't nerfed. Consequences are dire: lack of proper balance, classes falling from ladder, low skill floor....but who cares? Everything for the easy winfix therefore pack selling: serving the target audience.
Marketing based card design counters skill based card design.
Marketing rules the nerf meta, not skill and strategy.
Well put, also, aggro decks in general are much cheaper to craft than control decks, and Blizzard knows this. I feel that while they entice one into buying packs for the legendary cards that are needed for many control decks, they understand that for a new player or a player without much money, needs to have access to competitive decks, hence why aggro will never be nerfed, and instead more options will be given to seasoned players to deal with them (like more control decks).
I seriously have 0 problem, never had and never will, with aggro decks. The reason why I have problem with Zul'jin is because it isn't a card that fits into the aggro theme that Blizzard has been pushing with hunter, and in so doing, you have a class now that doesn't REALLY (I said really guys, so don't start linking spellstone nerfs, etc...) get the spotlight for nerfs and in so doing, can dominate the meta with other variants.
I like the new archetype for hunter with Zul'jin, just from last night on HSReplay, I've gone 5 wins straight to 1 loss - which means nothing right now because it's such a low pool of total games. But that's better than my Quest paladin, which is 4 wins to 1 loss.
The thing is, I don't know how Blizzard could nerf Zul'jin. I feel like placing him into the Hall of Fame is better, that way he can still be as strong as he is in Wild formats, but in standard, players would be on a much more even ground - considering many heroes don't have access to their hero cards (I miss Frost Lich Jaina in standard).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hon. BSc. Medical Physics University of Toronto Class of 2017
seriously have 0 problem, never had and never will, with aggro decks. The reason why I have problem with Zul'jin is because it isn't a card that fits into the aggro theme that Blizzard has been pushing with hunter, and in so doing, you have a class now that doesn't REALLY (I said really guys, so don't start linking spellstone nerfs, etc...) get the spotlight for nerfs and in so doing, can dominate the meta with other variants.
Indeed Zul'jin doesn't fit hunter at first glance, but it serves the purpose: to nerf is to polarize.
I like the new archetype for hunter with Zul'jin, just from last night on HSReplay, I've gone 5 wins straight to 1 loss - which means nothing right now because it's such a low pool of total games. But that's better than my Quest paladin, which is 4 wins to 1 loss.
:) Nerver let favoritisms take place of truth.
The thing is, I don't know how Blizzard could nerf Zul'jin. I feel like placing him into the Hall of Fame is better, that way he can still be as strong as he is in Wild formats, but in standard, players would be on a much more even ground - considering many heroes don't have access to their hero cards (I miss Frost Lich Jaina in standard).
I'm not into discussions about how to nerf. That is imo irrelevant if you keep maintaining polarization. I'm just an observer how card design/nerf design politics work.
...they understand that for a new player or a player without much money, needs to have access to competitive decks, hence why aggro will never be nerfed, and instead more options will be given to seasoned players to deal with them (like more control decks).
It is unfair to sacrifies skill and strategy for the sole sake of acquiring new players. By the way, I'm not against aggro. I point to polarization as the result of its dominance. Maybe cheapening up legendaries can help. But that is a CEO-concern.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
When people see Boom and/or Luna's they already know they are probably gonna lose in most of the times and that alone creates negative and annoying feelings players develop about these cards. I see that many times while watching streamers and twitch chat complaining and spamming ResidentSleeper and other. On the other hand, Zul'jin rarely gets that kind of reaction from players.
Don't get me wrong, not saying that facts and statistics don't matter, I acknowledge that as well, but also because of those feelings and reactions everytime I come here there are mostly threads about complaining about this and that.
Even without these factors other than statistics on HSreplay, VS etc. I don't think Hunter needs a nerf. In my experience it isn't OP, but strong without a doubt. There isn't a single Hunter card that causes me to flip out like Boom and Luna's.
@Mohamed_Dean It should be nerfed in my opinion, I already explained why numerous times. And I literally got HSReplay last night as a recommendation from a fellow member on here, so the win streak I have so far on it would mean nothing.
That's right, this is your opinion, not backed up by facts, because you don't have any. And I totally respect that. So please avoid posting misguiding images that could as well be happenstance, and can't be taken seriously into account.
Also, that "haha" you put at the end there, doesn't really do anything but make you look immature. I looked you up, to see if you had any other posts, and you don't. So, if you're coming in here to sabotage someone else's thread (this isn't my thread by the way) to get a reaction from me, you'll leave empty handed.
Hey, way to try discrediting someone you don't agree with. My account is two years old, and really, there's just no need to explain my lurker status just for you. And there wouldn't be anything to sabotage either way, unless you made your essay less subjective. So don't feed your paranoia. haha
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hunter is definitely too strong right now, but I'm personally not complaining. If we look at VS, we can see that hunter is dominating against most match-ups it has.
Hon. BSc. Medical Physics
University of Toronto
Class of 2017
The age of Murter Hunloc will soon be upon us!!
I disagree with you. I do feel that Zul'Jin is strong, but a 10 mana play is a 10 mana play: It better be good. Zul'Jin, although not ENTIRELY randomly, still slings spells at its own face, minions, and does them in an order sometimes that is more a detrimental turn 10 play than say another copy of unleash the beast in your hand plus more removal. Hunter has weaknesses: little to no natural healing, virtually no way outside of the hero card to gain armor, minion based removal spells or random chance removal aside from Marked Shot now. You're choosing to put the blame on the card because you likely matched a Hunter and he pulled the win with Zul'jin after every spell miraculously went in order and favorably changed the board...maybe one time too many for your fortune. Shudderwock currently finishes the game in its use. It doesn't set up a lethal turn- it outright battlecries the damage where the damage needs to go thanks to doubling up on Lifedrinkers. It creates a one mana option at the very least that either finishes the job or stabilizes without fault in some cases just like Zul'Jin. The best hunter spell is a 3 mana removal and even that is random effect. Unleash for 6 is piss poor as a rushing 5/5 is usually not the most efficient answer when needed. It lives with 2-3 health on average and is easily answered the next turn. At worst, it hits divine shield as your only mechanic to open the window for a decent trade. I don't think Zul'Jin now, or ever, needs to be changed or nerfed. Hunter is right where it needs to be, and if the meta wanted to counter it then it would die off like any other deck. All of you love Mage and Warrior so face the consequence of the answer.
I'm going to agree to disagree. I've already stated in the thread I linked about why Zul'jin is problematic, to me. Many people (most) agree, just the same way most agreed that Luna's at 5 mana was game-defining. ZUl'jin, irrespective of the mana cost to use him, is game-defining. If you can't beat the hunter before turn 10, you're most likely going to lose.
Zuljin offers, in ONE turn (i.e. when you play him):
1. Clearing your opponent's board
2. Setting up your own board
3. Refilling your own hand
4. Setting up lethal for next turn
If, me, the opponent has set-up lethal for next turn, one card being played (Zul'jin) shouldn't be able to nullify that lethal set-up while also setting up lethal for the person playing it, and also provide stability.
Hon. BSc. Medical Physics
University of Toronto
Class of 2017
Agreeing to disagree is perfectly fine. I'm voicing the opposition because Blizzard does, occasionally, care about what people say about cards and I feel that many will disagree with you and see my or other's points to keep the card the way it is. I think most is an overstatement. I've been that person typing a card into google with some "hate tag" attached to it to see where people are complaining so I can join in. It's pretty easy to find people who agree on threads built for it. For purpose of arguing against this point further, because nerfing the card is your goal and preserving it is mine:
1. Zul'Jin and Luna's Pocket Galaxy are NOT in the same bracket of cards. Zul'Jin is like Bloodreaver Guldan or Puzzle Box. The random order effect nature of Puzzle Box mixed with the "revive" of certain cards/minions like Guldan. Pocket Galaxy isn't a "roll the dice for a save" card. You don't play it to try to survive or turn the game, you play it to secure an absurd level of mana cheat EARLY in the game. Early versus late and permanent mana cheat on cards not meant to experience it vs a stability dice roll.
2. "If you can't beat Hunter by turn 10, you are most likely going to lose." Prove this. Show some stats. You can't just say this because you don't like the card. I have lost PLENTY of games after turn 10 to control decks that got there against me. This being regardless of the Zul'Jin play because I needed to use it at the right moment and still lost.
3. Your bold point. Yes playing a 10 cost card SHOULD stop your lethal if it is a legendary and built to do so. It DOES NOT guarantee a lethal set up for the Hunter, as it's played winrate is currently 59% and 61% in the two highest winrate Hunter decks. Therefore it successfully closes/turns the game the low majority of the time- including times where you already had a decent chance to win and needed a finisher. It does offer stability, but I did just compare it to a card of the same mana cost that in its meta rotation brought back 1-3 Void Lords with taunt that made more taunt minions. This card TRULY knocked you out of the game with up to 75% winrate on play recorded average. (All data on HSReplay).
I'm not trying to attack you personally, you're making your point and showing experiences of why you don't like the card. However, I think it is irresponsible to let posts like that go without debate or opposition because Blizzard DOES watch and I would hate for this card to get thrown into the nerf table just because a few people had bad experiences against it. If you bring data to the table that proves something otherwise I am welcoming it.
I have a really big collection but never pulled Zul'Jin and since I don't play Hunter that often haven't felt the need to craft him. I think it's a pretty fair card. It can RNG backfire and whilst it's a big swing play it's by no means a done deal every time you see him at turn 10.
A very strong effect but not broken IMO. There are way more issues outside of Zul'Jin and this is coming from a non-Hunter player.
I don't have the data, Blizzard does. I stand by my points made, the same way you stand by yours. I crafted Zul'jin because I legitimately couldn't beat the Zul'jin hunter decks out there, and so I decided, if you can't beat them, join them. My win rate against control has drastically increased on pen and paper, which I do keep track of.
While it suffers against aggro, it has an almost unchallenged win against control.
1. As to why I pointed that out, it's because usually if most players feel something is off with a card, it turns out to be true - as I said, Blizzard holds the stats and I'll let Blizzard decide how they want to proceed. While it isn't as game-changing as Luna's, when Zul'jin is played, the chances your opponent will win is drastically reduced because up until Zul'jin is played, you still have to deal with the annoying spells hunters have in their arsenal, and some spells given insane value (See the card that buffs a beast by +3/+3 and adds 3 copies to your deck), or hunter's pack, for hand refill, not to mention deadly shot - for board removal, the twinspell that summons a 5/5 wyvern with Rush (for board removal and a minion generated on the board), and animal companion (which alone is absurd).
2. My pen and paper tracks show I've lost to every hunter that has played Zul'jin on curve. Maybe yours doesn't show that, but I can keep track online from now on if you'd like. I'd be more than happy too - however, I think VS in the comin week will show that hunter will increase in winrate from its already high winrate against control.
3. It should do one or the other. As it is right now, it does a guarantee of 3 strong plays. Here they are: Refills your hand (guaranteed), creates minions on your board (guaranteed), and prevents lethal (armor alone and secret play will stop you from getting killed the next turn). Now, if it did one of those, I'd be fine...but it does those 3 AND it also has a very high chance at clearing your opponents board so that this late in the game, they will not be able to make a comeback, and also adds cards to your deck to prevent fatigue.
And don't worry man, I know you aren't attacking me personally. I actually do want us to continue this discussion, and hope more people join in to give their opinions, perspectives, and so forth. These kinds of discussions are healthy and necessary for the game, and I'm certain Blizzard appreciates it too, as long as it's being conducted in a respective manner, and you haven't shown any disrespect, so I'm more than happy to continue discussing this card with you.
I read your initial response, and I saw that you did admit it is a strong card. I am trying to say that it is slightly more than that. I would say it is an extremely strong card that at least warrants a look.
Hon. BSc. Medical Physics
University of Toronto
Class of 2017
@Mohamed_Dean
Hey I appreciate that at the least that you recognize its just a debate even if we don't see eye to eye. If you aren't using HS Replay I would highly suggest you follow it on online and use the hearthstone Decktracker add-on as well. It allows for note tabs on your decks themselves, and lays out percentages of class match-ups as you encounter them. It is truly data driven. Sometimes this is good, other times it can be misleading numbers. However, I really like the mulligan, mulligan win-rate, and mulligan play-rate stats that it provides. They really give a snapshot of the "when" of card balance. Also for perspective, are you playing the highlander or full secret version of the deck? I'd also like to, in spirit of the thread, offer Dinotamer Brann in Zul'Jin's place lol. A whopping 72.2% played win-rate. This card on the coin against control is the definition of a shutdown and I do think there is a problem.
I wonder why they don't get rid of people who whine like a cry-baby. I'm so sick of all these threads that screaming after nerfs because they can't handle some classes.
Det är bättre med en fågel i hand, än tiger i träd!
Got HS Replay/decktracker and going to set it up today. Hoping to message you some good statistics you can work with (or even make a thread and post them in there for people to look over).
I'm playing the Highlander version, I try to aim to play Zephrys before I play zul'jin, and I play Zephrys to fish for a strong board clear spell. For example, Turn 9 Zephrys for a flamestrike. Flamestrike that same turn (7 mana). Turn 10 Zul'jin.
Practically guarantees you clear the opponents board.
Hon. BSc. Medical Physics
University of Toronto
Class of 2017
Are you for real? It's because freedom of speech is one of the few wonders the free world has to offer and must be respected at all cost, mr. dictator...
Sigh...
Man, this was such a nice feeling haha Edit: Rank 15 to 10 bracket. Can't see the rank because I'm playing on my phone - and for those that don't know, I took a screenshot of this and then sent it to my email and opened it on my PC.
Hon. BSc. Medical Physics
University of Toronto
Class of 2017
@Mohamed_Dean
Hey bro.
Couldn't but notice the image you uploaded there.
Featuring the iconic Zul'jin hunter hero card.
Right after advocating that it's a problematic card that should be nerfed.
Would you mind posting those statistics you mentioned earlier,
or will you stick with the anecdotal casual game screencaps?
haha
It should be nerfed in my opinion, I already explained why numerous times. And I literally got HSReplay last night as a recommendation from a fellow member on here, so the win streak I have so far on it would mean nothing.
Hon. BSc. Medical Physics
University of Toronto
Class of 2017
Also, that "haha" you put at the end there, doesn't really do anything but make you look immature. I looked you up, to see if you had any other posts, and you don't. So, if you're coming in here to sabotage someone else's thread (this isn't my thread by the way) to get a reaction from me, you'll leave empty handed.
Also, that wasn't in casual. It was in the ranked 10 to 15 bracket. If you play on your phone, you'd know that you can't see the ranking number in ranked play during the game. You also know it's on my phone because of the way the game board is set up.
Hon. BSc. Medical Physics
University of Toronto
Class of 2017
Nerfs are axiomatic and central to card design philosophy Blizzard employs for Hearthstone. Here is the axiom: nerfs are relocated to classes that keep the meta polarized. Hunter is one of the key classes to keep the meta polarized (together with rogue, murloc shaman/paladin: aggressive, skill-low /strategy-low). On the other hand of the equation: control decks from Warrior and Mage.
Keeping the meta polarized is the core reason for nerfs and other so called 'balance changes.' Therefore perfectly understandable that Hunter isn't nerfed. Consequences are dire: lack of proper balance, classes falling from ladder, low skill floor....but who cares? Everything for the easy winfix therefore pack selling: serving the target audience.
Marketing based card design counters skill based card design.
Marketing rules the nerf meta, not skill and strategy.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Well put, also, aggro decks in general are much cheaper to craft than control decks, and Blizzard knows this. I feel that while they entice one into buying packs for the legendary cards that are needed for many control decks, they understand that for a new player or a player without much money, needs to have access to competitive decks, hence why aggro will never be nerfed, and instead more options will be given to seasoned players to deal with them (like more control decks).
I seriously have 0 problem, never had and never will, with aggro decks. The reason why I have problem with Zul'jin is because it isn't a card that fits into the aggro theme that Blizzard has been pushing with hunter, and in so doing, you have a class now that doesn't REALLY (I said really guys, so don't start linking spellstone nerfs, etc...) get the spotlight for nerfs and in so doing, can dominate the meta with other variants.
I like the new archetype for hunter with Zul'jin, just from last night on HSReplay, I've gone 5 wins straight to 1 loss - which means nothing right now because it's such a low pool of total games. But that's better than my Quest paladin, which is 4 wins to 1 loss.
The thing is, I don't know how Blizzard could nerf Zul'jin. I feel like placing him into the Hall of Fame is better, that way he can still be as strong as he is in Wild formats, but in standard, players would be on a much more even ground - considering many heroes don't have access to their hero cards (I miss Frost Lich Jaina in standard).
Hon. BSc. Medical Physics
University of Toronto
Class of 2017
Indeed Zul'jin doesn't fit hunter at first glance, but it serves the purpose: to nerf is to polarize.
:) Nerver let favoritisms take place of truth.
I'm not into discussions about how to nerf. That is imo irrelevant if you keep maintaining polarization. I'm just an observer how card design/nerf design politics work.
It is unfair to sacrifies skill and strategy for the sole sake of acquiring new players. By the way, I'm not against aggro. I point to polarization as the result of its dominance. Maybe cheapening up legendaries can help. But that is a CEO-concern.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
When people see Boom and/or Luna's they already know they are probably gonna lose in most of the times and that alone creates negative and annoying feelings players develop about these cards. I see that many times while watching streamers and twitch chat complaining and spamming ResidentSleeper and other. On the other hand, Zul'jin rarely gets that kind of reaction from players.
Don't get me wrong, not saying that facts and statistics don't matter, I acknowledge that as well, but also because of those feelings and reactions everytime I come here there are mostly threads about complaining about this and that.
Even without these factors other than statistics on HSreplay, VS etc. I don't think Hunter needs a nerf. In my experience it isn't OP, but strong without a doubt. There isn't a single Hunter card that causes me to flip out like Boom and Luna's.
That's right, this is your opinion, not backed up by facts, because you don't have any.
And I totally respect that.
So please avoid posting misguiding images that could as well be happenstance, and can't be taken seriously into account.
Hey, way to try discrediting someone you don't agree with.
My account is two years old, and really, there's just no need to explain my lurker status just for you.
And there wouldn't be anything to sabotage either way, unless you made your essay less subjective.
So don't feed your paranoia.
haha