I think you misunderstand me, i'm not against combo decks, i even specifically supported freeze mage in my post, i'm against otk combo decks. Since you can't interact with opponent's on their turn, there's no healthy way to counter them. Otk combo decks can only be countered in hearthstone by aggro (which is fine, but having it as the only counter to otk makes a rock paper scissors meta), or by disruption, which only has a random chance to remove the combo piece. Literally leaving the outcome of the game based on the chance that you played the disruption card on the right turn is not a healthy way to balance the game.
Looks like I did misunderstand you. I wouldn't consider old freeze mage a combo deck, it was just a burn deck imo. Things like Shudderwock and Mecha'thun which you mention later are essentially uninteractive OTKs, so you're on it there. Modern day Freeze Mage in Wild is an OTK deck that I see everywhere, while I only see Mechathun or Shudderwock once in a blue moon nowadays and the novelty tends to outweigh the shame/annoyance of losing to them.
If you're referring to those cards being in standard, yeah they were pretty obnoxious. Some of the most vocally hated cards in pre-Tickatus times were Shudderwock and Mechathun. I agree that they're annoying, and I agree that uninteractivity feels bad, but uninteractivity is a constant nagging feature of the whole game that we've all had to deal with. Aggro is "uninteractive" because they don't trade. Control is "uninteractive" because they just play board clears and don't do anything else. Combo is "uninteractive" because once they've got their setup they can win (or in non OTK cases, set up a win-condition) without you being able to stop them. It's more of a systemic problem than an OTK-Combo specific problem. I'd say we fix the games lack of interaction problem instead of delete an entire archetype that a lot of people enjoy.
OTK decks exist to prevent control decks from being too powerful. Just like aggro decks they’re a necessary part of the meta, whether you like them or not. Most of the time with the right tech and plays you can foil their plan. They aren’t the be all end all of decks.
I think you misunderstand me, i'm not against combo decks, i even specifically supported freeze mage in my post, i'm against otk combo decks. Since you can't interact with opponent's on their turn, there's no healthy way to counter them. Otk combo decks can only be countered in hearthstone by aggro (which is fine, but having it as the only counter to otk makes a rock paper scissors meta), or by disruption, which only has a random chance to remove the combo piece. Literally leaving the outcome of the game based on the chance that you played the disruption card on the right turn is not a healthy way to balance the game.
Looks like I did misunderstand you. I wouldn't consider old freeze mage a combo deck, it was just a burn deck imo. Things like Shudderwock and Mecha'thun which you mention later are essentially uninteractive OTKs, so you're on it there. Modern day Freeze Mage in Wild is an OTK deck that I see everywhere, while I only see Mechathun or Shudderwock once in a blue moon nowadays and the novelty tends to outweigh the shame/annoyance of losing to them.
If you're referring to those cards being in standard, yeah they were pretty obnoxious. Some of the most vocally hated cards in pre-Tickatus times were Shudderwock and Mechathun. I agree that they're annoying, and I agree that uninteractivity feels bad, but uninteractivity is a constant nagging feature of the whole game that we've all had to deal with. Aggro is "uninteractive" because they don't trade. Control is "uninteractive" because they just play board clears and don't do anything else. Combo is "uninteractive" because once they've got their setup they can win (or in non OTK cases, set up a win-condition) without you being able to stop them. It's more of a systemic problem than an OTK-Combo specific problem. I'd say we fix the games lack of interaction problem instead of delete an entire archetype that a lot of people enjoy.
I'd call the og freeze mage a combo deck since you stall and draw cards so you can get Alexstraza and combo Frost Bolt with Ice Lances. You can call it a burn deck, but i'd argue most otk decks could also be called a burn deck too.
I have to disagree with you on saying aggro, control, or even midrange is uninteractive though.
Against aggro you interact by removing their minions or choosing to play your own minions instead. Choosing to value trade or race your opponent. Do a board clear immediately or wait for more value. You interact with your opponent every step of the way
Against control you interact by applying choosing to apply pressure or not overcommit to an AOE. Use removal at the first oppotunity or wait for more value. To go for greed or go for tempo.
Maybe you have a different idea of what interactive means, so please explain
Against aggro you interact by removing their minions or choosing to play your own minions instead. Choosing to value trade or race your opponent. Do a board clear immediately or wait for more value. You interact with your opponent every step of the way
Against control you interact by applying choosing to apply pressure or not overcommit to an AOE. Use removal at the first oppotunity or wait for more value. To go for greed or go for tempo.
Maybe you have a different idea of what interactive means, so please explain
The aggro vs aggro matchup is very nuanced and does tend to be very interactive, and it's something I wish more people were willing to talk about when they give aggro crap.
I was more or less giving extreme examples and hyperboles that people might bring up whenever they're "discussing" each type of deck, since people rarely talk about decks in ways that aren't negative. However;
I wouldn't say "choosing when to make certain plays/what plays to make" is "interactive/interaction" per se. That's just making meaningful gameplay decisions. I come from YuGiOh, where interaction is everything. If you aren't able to negate, destroy, or otherwise interact with your opponents cards, you tend to lose.
I'd probably define interaction as mechanics that have a means for both players to meaningfully influence the outcome of a situation. When you cast Flamestrike, sure you're "interacting" with your opponent's board, but they can't "interact" with your Flamestrike in any meaningful way outside of not playing into it. And I wouldn't call "not playing cards so I don't get overly punished by removal" a form of "interaction" because it's literally non-gameplay. It's a decision point, but in my experience, you don't have a way to stop that from happening. It doesn't so much feel like a wizard's duel as much as it feels like tiptoeing through a hallway filled with boobytraps.
Interact means you're doing something with someone, to me at least. YuGiOh, MTG, and LoR are all the other card games I play, and each of em has a form of meaningful interaction where you can disrupt and be disrupted. YuGiOh does it a bit too much, I'd say LoR does it perfectly.
Personally I would agree. I dont like playing otk decks. And playing against them is not interesting either. So for me hearthstone would be a better game without otk. But I guess there are enough players that like to play these decks that Blizzard keeps supporting the archetype for years now even after their quote ,,Leeroy Jenkins created a strategy that revolved around trying to defeat your opponent in one turn without requiring any cards on the board. We like having a variety of deck types but taking 20+ damage in one turn is not very fun or interactive,, . I guess they changed their mind on that one. Oh well...still plenty of fun in hs for me even with the otk nuisance.
Give me OTK or Combo over Curve-stone on any day, nothing worse than midrange and your opponent playing the perfect card on every turn. Even aggro is fine, but not in this meta as there isnt enough healing yet...
What’s wrong with a Rock Paper Scissors meta? Isn’t that what defines a healthy meta?
A rock paper scissors meta is a meta where each matchup is heavily favored to one side. It's bad because it typically means your gameplay matters very little and who you happen to much up against decides the outcome. It's much more fun to play when you feel like there's a chance for you to win. If you're in a matchup and instantly concede because it's an unwinnable matchup, that's bad.
The aggro vs aggro matchup is very nuanced and does tend to be very interactive, and it's something I wish more people were willing to talk about when they give aggro crap.
I was more or less giving extreme examples and hyperboles that people might bring up whenever they're "discussing" each type of deck, since people rarely talk about decks in ways that aren't negative. However;
I wouldn't say "choosing when to make certain plays/what plays to make" is "interactive/interaction" per se. That's just making meaningful gameplay decisions. I come from YuGiOh, where interaction is everything. If you aren't able to negate, destroy, or otherwise interact with your opponents cards, you tend to lose.
I'd probably define interaction as mechanics that have a means for both players to meaningfully influence the outcome of a situation. When you cast Flamestrike, sure you're "interacting" with your opponent's board, but they can't "interact" with your Flamestrike in any meaningful way outside of not playing into it. And I wouldn't call "not playing cards so I don't get overly punished by removal" a form of "interaction" because it's literally non-gameplay. It's a decision point, but in my experience, you don't have a way to stop that from happening. It doesn't so much feel like a wizard's duel as much as it feels like tiptoeing through a hallway filled with boobytraps.
Interact means you're doing something with someone, to me at least. YuGiOh, MTG, and LoR are all the other card games I play, and each of em has a form of meaningful interaction where you can disrupt and be disrupted. YuGiOh does it a bit too much, I'd say LoR does it perfectly.
hmm, you say meaningful interaction is where you can disrupt and be disrupted, but then you point to Flamestrike as non-interactive. I'd say Flamestrike is disrupting your opponent. The only thing missing is being able to counter (prevent a card from being put into play). But even in card games that have counterspells like MTG or Eternal, most decks don't run them (because they don't have the right colors)
Aggro are bad for the game, control\fatigue a bad for the game, tempo-curve stone are bad. Everything is bad, when its too much of it, but if its just a little - it makes the game more fun and diverse.
It seems far more constructive to suggest potential nerfs to problematic decks than to simply post an opinion piece that "OTK decks shouldn't exist." Of course they should - millions of folks only play CCGs because they enjoy winning the game by doing convoluted deck manipulation and card sequencing that results in a big, sudden, gaming winning combo. "No they shouldn't - they should enjoy the game differently," isn't exactly a helpful attitude.
It's also worthwhile recognising that there are dozens of OTK decks "out there" in Tier 4 Wild - it isn't obvious that you understand how much nerfing is actually going to be necessary in your crusade. I'd suggest watching some Wild streamers, or Hysteria, in order to get some idea of the scope of the issue. You might as well start with Spectral Pillager - it might be the most popular OTK deck that you seem unaware of.
Here's a link to a Hysteria video, Top 10 OTK combos - you'll have to nerf cards like Lightning Bolt, Da Undertaker, Emperor Thaurissan, Mayor Noggenfogger, and dozens of others not in this particular video . . .
These combos are all so impractical that they would never be remotely competitive even against a control deck. Practically every single one of them require multiple Emperor Thaurissan ticks, meaning they're interactive since you can just kill him; and if they became a problem you could just nerf Emperor Thaurissan to work at the start of your turn. But more to the point, otk combos that are unviable and not part of the meta aren't really a big problem since they don't warp the meta into using unfun disruption cards or strictly aggressive decks
Aggro are bad for the game, control\fatigue a bad for the game, tempo-curve stone are bad. Everything is bad, when its too much of it, but if its just a little - it makes the game more fun and diverse.
I wouldn't say any of that's true. Sure having an overtuned specific deck gets to be too repetitive. But for each of those archetypes there's interaction between both players each turn (except for the first couple turns of control vs control). If things start going badly, you have multiple turns to influence and change the outcome. Everything is incremental.
Against OTK you could be winning the entire time, and then they get they get their combo and win while ignoring everything you've done. It makes what you do meaningless. And the counterplay is to aggro them down and hope they don't get their combo quick enough. Or to play disruption cards which are inherently unfun for the person playing them and playing against them and only have a random chance to actually disrupt their combo. And even if it does, now you just instantly win instead of them, there is still no interactivity
hmm, you say meaningful interaction is where you can disrupt and be disrupted, but then you point to Flamestrike as non-interactive. I'd say Flamestrike is disrupting your opponent. The only thing missing is being able to counter (prevent a card from being put into play). But even in card games that have counterspells like MTG or Eternal, most decks don't run them (because they don't have the right colors)
Yeah I wasn't really able to make my point very well. Could be that I'm wrong then, but I've never felt that board clears were very engaging as a card type. Not a bad thing, but I think I'm just so used to Control players ragging on aggro that I brought that into this conversation where it didn't really fit.
My bad. However, I don't think I've changed my mind on OTKs being bad for the game. I think they're okay - and we shouldn't abolish a type of deck people really like.
Yeah I wasn't really able to make my point very well. Could be that I'm wrong then, but I've never felt that board clears were very engaging as a card type. Not a bad thing, but I think I'm just so used to Control players ragging on aggro that I brought that into this conversation where it didn't really fit.
My bad. However, I don't think I've changed my mind on OTKs being bad for the game. I think they're okay - and we shouldn't abolish a type of deck people really like.
Are there any archetypes of decks that you think are bad for the game? Like Jade druid, dead man's hand warrior, or mill rogue? If so, why?
Are there any archetypes of decks that you think are bad for the game? Like Jade druid, dead man's hand warrior, or mill rogue? If so, why?
Not in any extreme way. I think mill as a strategy is totally fine, fatigue being a brilliant mechanic for deck-out situations I think it's cool that decks use it to kill people. I've said my piece about Mill in some Tickatus threads, but I think it's good for the game altogether. In that same vein Dead Man's Hand and Jade Idol are two cards that run counter to the concept of fatigue. I think that is also fine - if a game provides ways to circumvent provided mechanics in an advantageous way, and that would be fun for somebody, I would say go for it! Jade Druid had its time but it doesn't do much in Wild nowadays. Likewise Dead Man's Hand Warrior isn't really oppressive, the two of them are just the penultimate control decks because they ignore the punishment for games going too long. There's always going to be a "best" of something.
As of right now the only deck that really grinds my gears is Mozaki Mage in Wild - Ice Block is a card that is famously bankrupt of good feelings, and since the decks I play in Wild to ladder up are Even, I can't just get rid of it with Flare. I could run SI:7 Infiltrator but then I'd be disadvantaged against every other deck. The other part of the deck that gets me isn't Mozaki itself, or the losing by turn 5-6; it's my inability to do anything about it because of Ice Block and Frost Nova. Being rendered completely helpless to do anything because of some old cards/mechanics feels terrible, and it's really my only problem with that deck. My only hope is to draw so well that they *must* spend some spells on my minions that normally fuel Mozaki, Master Duelist or else I can't win that matchup.
Combos are a huge crutch for bad players....nevermind skill or strategy, I got my combo cards!!!! I win!!! (usually followed with delusions of skill)
The exact kind of people who would never go to an arcade because other people might break their nose due to their juvenile antics....sad little trolls who get off on winning cheap.
Combos are a huge crutch for bad players....nevermind skill or strategy, I got my combo cards!!!! I win!!! (usually followed with delusions of skill)
The exact kind of people who would never go to an arcade because other people might break their nose due to their juvenile antics....sad little trolls who get off on winning cheap.
It's not productive to come to conclusions about a person's character or skills because of the decks they like to play. Some people find satisfaction in powerful/game winning combos - and that's fine.
I frankly don't give a toss if my otk deck is unfun for you or anyone else, to put it bluntly, I sure as hell have a blast playing it.
If you're in wild, tech in a dirty rat (like all reno decks do), a loatheb in your control deck or play any tier 1-2 aggro deck which has 60+ wr% against all combo decks and realise that if blizzard had any actual interest in making otk decks a thing of the past, mozaki and il'gynoth wouldn't exist.
Because, honestly, your solution is nuking otk decks out of the game which means that the only things left in wild (standard has no viable otk deck other than lifesteal dh, all-powerful tier 4 meme that it is) will be hyper aggro and control, with nothing else left. I also would like to hear what would you do about reno priest (which technically is an otk since they kill you from 30+hp in a single turn unless, guess what, you rat their spawn of shadows/raza out beforehand) or something like shudderwock (which, by all intents and purposes, is an otk in the sense that after you play the first one, the opponent is dead no matter what).
Made me lol when reading mecha'thun tho, I'll give you that, haven't seen that played in almost a year, the poor lad.
Hey man, stop talking about Mecha'thun Warlock. I got a good thing going here since no one cares to tech against it. I win with it, but I also only play games as needed. I'm sure the win percentage would be lower if I was a grinder.
I find most folks crying about combo OTK are usually the ones who like slow control decks. I played against a control warrior today who knew he was gonna lose and roped me every turn. So no I don't feel bad playing the combo on these types of players. You have nine turns to close the deal. A lot more turns than a finely tuned aggro deck will give you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Grammar is the difference between knowing your crap, and knowing you’re crap.
Every day there are about 5 new nerf tickatus threads on here. Tickatus is living rent free in many people's minds. But, that's exactly the type of card the game needs to deal with OTKs. Disruption.
I would love to see more disruption in the game. More hand destruction. More mana disruption. More mill support.
But, when people cry EVERY DAY about the one good disruption card we do have, it seems like I'm alone here.
Looks like I did misunderstand you. I wouldn't consider old freeze mage a combo deck, it was just a burn deck imo. Things like Shudderwock and Mecha'thun which you mention later are essentially uninteractive OTKs, so you're on it there. Modern day Freeze Mage in Wild is an OTK deck that I see everywhere, while I only see Mechathun or Shudderwock once in a blue moon nowadays and the novelty tends to outweigh the shame/annoyance of losing to them.
If you're referring to those cards being in standard, yeah they were pretty obnoxious. Some of the most vocally hated cards in pre-Tickatus times were Shudderwock and Mechathun. I agree that they're annoying, and I agree that uninteractivity feels bad, but uninteractivity is a constant nagging feature of the whole game that we've all had to deal with. Aggro is "uninteractive" because they don't trade. Control is "uninteractive" because they just play board clears and don't do anything else. Combo is "uninteractive" because once they've got their setup they can win (or in non OTK cases, set up a win-condition) without you being able to stop them. It's more of a systemic problem than an OTK-Combo specific problem. I'd say we fix the games lack of interaction problem instead of delete an entire archetype that a lot of people enjoy.
please don't bully my son
OTK decks exist to prevent control decks from being too powerful. Just like aggro decks they’re a necessary part of the meta, whether you like them or not. Most of the time with the right tech and plays you can foil their plan. They aren’t the be all end all of decks.
I'd call the og freeze mage a combo deck since you stall and draw cards so you can get Alexstraza and combo Frost Bolt with Ice Lances. You can call it a burn deck, but i'd argue most otk decks could also be called a burn deck too.
I have to disagree with you on saying aggro, control, or even midrange is uninteractive though.
Against aggro you interact by removing their minions or choosing to play your own minions instead. Choosing to value trade or race your opponent. Do a board clear immediately or wait for more value. You interact with your opponent every step of the way
Against control you interact by applying choosing to apply pressure or not overcommit to an AOE. Use removal at the first oppotunity or wait for more value. To go for greed or go for tempo.
Maybe you have a different idea of what interactive means, so please explain
What’s wrong with a Rock Paper Scissors meta? Isn’t that what defines a healthy meta?
The aggro vs aggro matchup is very nuanced and does tend to be very interactive, and it's something I wish more people were willing to talk about when they give aggro crap.
I was more or less giving extreme examples and hyperboles that people might bring up whenever they're "discussing" each type of deck, since people rarely talk about decks in ways that aren't negative. However;
I wouldn't say "choosing when to make certain plays/what plays to make" is "interactive/interaction" per se. That's just making meaningful gameplay decisions. I come from YuGiOh, where interaction is everything. If you aren't able to negate, destroy, or otherwise interact with your opponents cards, you tend to lose.
I'd probably define interaction as mechanics that have a means for both players to meaningfully influence the outcome of a situation. When you cast Flamestrike, sure you're "interacting" with your opponent's board, but they can't "interact" with your Flamestrike in any meaningful way outside of not playing into it. And I wouldn't call "not playing cards so I don't get overly punished by removal" a form of "interaction" because it's literally non-gameplay. It's a decision point, but in my experience, you don't have a way to stop that from happening. It doesn't so much feel like a wizard's duel as much as it feels like tiptoeing through a hallway filled with boobytraps.
Interact means you're doing something with someone, to me at least. YuGiOh, MTG, and LoR are all the other card games I play, and each of em has a form of meaningful interaction where you can disrupt and be disrupted. YuGiOh does it a bit too much, I'd say LoR does it perfectly.
please don't bully my son
Personally I would agree. I dont like playing otk decks. And playing against them is not interesting either. So for me hearthstone would be a better game without otk. But I guess there are enough players that like to play these decks that Blizzard keeps supporting the archetype for years now even after their quote ,,Leeroy Jenkins created a strategy that revolved around trying to defeat your opponent in one turn without requiring any cards on the board. We like having a variety of deck types but taking 20+ damage in one turn is not very fun or interactive,, . I guess they changed their mind on that one. Oh well...still plenty of fun in hs for me even with the otk nuisance.
Give me OTK or Combo over Curve-stone on any day, nothing worse than midrange and your opponent playing the perfect card on every turn. Even aggro is fine, but not in this meta as there isnt enough healing yet...
A rock paper scissors meta is a meta where each matchup is heavily favored to one side. It's bad because it typically means your gameplay matters very little and who you happen to much up against decides the outcome. It's much more fun to play when you feel like there's a chance for you to win. If you're in a matchup and instantly concede because it's an unwinnable matchup, that's bad.
hmm, you say meaningful interaction is where you can disrupt and be disrupted, but then you point to Flamestrike as non-interactive. I'd say Flamestrike is disrupting your opponent. The only thing missing is being able to counter (prevent a card from being put into play). But even in card games that have counterspells like MTG or Eternal, most decks don't run them (because they don't have the right colors)
Aggro are bad for the game, control\fatigue a bad for the game, tempo-curve stone are bad. Everything is bad, when its too much of it, but if its just a little - it makes the game more fun and diverse.
These combos are all so impractical that they would never be remotely competitive even against a control deck. Practically every single one of them require multiple Emperor Thaurissan ticks, meaning they're interactive since you can just kill him; and if they became a problem you could just nerf Emperor Thaurissan to work at the start of your turn. But more to the point, otk combos that are unviable and not part of the meta aren't really a big problem since they don't warp the meta into using unfun disruption cards or strictly aggressive decks
I wouldn't say any of that's true. Sure having an overtuned specific deck gets to be too repetitive. But for each of those archetypes there's interaction between both players each turn (except for the first couple turns of control vs control). If things start going badly, you have multiple turns to influence and change the outcome. Everything is incremental.
Against OTK you could be winning the entire time, and then they get they get their combo and win while ignoring everything you've done. It makes what you do meaningless. And the counterplay is to aggro them down and hope they don't get their combo quick enough. Or to play disruption cards which are inherently unfun for the person playing them and playing against them and only have a random chance to actually disrupt their combo. And even if it does, now you just instantly win instead of them, there is still no interactivity
Yeah I wasn't really able to make my point very well. Could be that I'm wrong then, but I've never felt that board clears were very engaging as a card type. Not a bad thing, but I think I'm just so used to Control players ragging on aggro that I brought that into this conversation where it didn't really fit.
My bad. However, I don't think I've changed my mind on OTKs being bad for the game. I think they're okay - and we shouldn't abolish a type of deck people really like.
please don't bully my son
Are there any archetypes of decks that you think are bad for the game? Like Jade druid, dead man's hand warrior, or mill rogue? If so, why?
Not in any extreme way. I think mill as a strategy is totally fine, fatigue being a brilliant mechanic for deck-out situations I think it's cool that decks use it to kill people. I've said my piece about Mill in some Tickatus threads, but I think it's good for the game altogether.
In that same vein Dead Man's Hand and Jade Idol are two cards that run counter to the concept of fatigue. I think that is also fine - if a game provides ways to circumvent provided mechanics in an advantageous way, and that would be fun for somebody, I would say go for it! Jade Druid had its time but it doesn't do much in Wild nowadays. Likewise Dead Man's Hand Warrior isn't really oppressive, the two of them are just the penultimate control decks because they ignore the punishment for games going too long. There's always going to be a "best" of something.
As of right now the only deck that really grinds my gears is Mozaki Mage in Wild - Ice Block is a card that is famously bankrupt of good feelings, and since the decks I play in Wild to ladder up are Even, I can't just get rid of it with Flare. I could run SI:7 Infiltrator but then I'd be disadvantaged against every other deck. The other part of the deck that gets me isn't Mozaki itself, or the losing by turn 5-6; it's my inability to do anything about it because of Ice Block and Frost Nova. Being rendered completely helpless to do anything because of some old cards/mechanics feels terrible, and it's really my only problem with that deck. My only hope is to draw so well that they *must* spend some spells on my minions that normally fuel Mozaki, Master Duelist or else I can't win that matchup.
please don't bully my son
Ah, so this guy plays control, so he wants the way to beat his style to be nerfed. Got it.
Combos are a huge crutch for bad players....nevermind skill or strategy, I got my combo cards!!!! I win!!! (usually followed with delusions of skill)
The exact kind of people who would never go to an arcade because other people might break their nose due to their juvenile antics....sad little trolls who get off on winning cheap.
It's not productive to come to conclusions about a person's character or skills because of the decks they like to play.
Some people find satisfaction in powerful/game winning combos - and that's fine.
please don't bully my son
Hey man, stop talking about Mecha'thun Warlock. I got a good thing going here since no one cares to tech against it. I win with it, but I also only play games as needed. I'm sure the win percentage would be lower if I was a grinder.
I find most folks crying about combo OTK are usually the ones who like slow control decks. I played against a control warrior today who knew he was gonna lose and roped me every turn. So no I don't feel bad playing the combo on these types of players. You have nine turns to close the deal. A lot more turns than a finely tuned aggro deck will give you.
Grammar is the difference between knowing your crap, and knowing you’re crap.
A .gif is worth a thousand words.
Every day there are about 5 new nerf tickatus threads on here. Tickatus is living rent free in many people's minds. But, that's exactly the type of card the game needs to deal with OTKs. Disruption.
I would love to see more disruption in the game. More hand destruction. More mana disruption. More mill support.
But, when people cry EVERY DAY about the one good disruption card we do have, it seems like I'm alone here.
Galavant Animation