Whether or not Alex needs to be nerfed is a point of opinion, but it is worth noting that neutral cards have been nerfed for being overly prevalent and mitigating class weaknesses too well. Alex is powerful, prevalent, and mitigates multiple class weaknesses.
This is such a bad design choice from Blizzard. Yeah sure, class identity matters and stuff, but there have been sooooooo many people complaining about the lack of diversity in the game/meta and now we are arguing about a freaking neutral 9-mana card that could enable non-control classes to go control and have a reliable finisher/healing tool? Why? Because the card is played across multiple classes? Or because it is "broken"? Or because it is included, yet not really needed, in several good meta decks? There are at least 20 cards in standard right now, at this very point in time, that are MUCH more problematic. And don't even get me started on Wild or Duels.
I also can't stand this argument about classes and their access to certain tools. Card games are about the types of deck you play and not about the class. And the neutral cards exist specifically for giving access to tools you otherwise wouldn't have. Just because your hero power can gain 2 armor, doesn't mean you have to play control. I am sure there are many rush warrior players in standard and arrrrgh! pirate warrior players in wild who would agree. And if they ever stop with this class identity nonsense, which just limits design space and deck variety, we could even end up with a control hunter. I know, that sounds insane.
Alex is just one good tool.
Class identity is a very important concept in hearthstone that separates it from other TCGs, the most certainly should not give it up. They do however need to stop stating it’s important all the while crapping all over it. For example, warlock. The whole thing about warlock is power at a cost, yet the only prevalent warlock deck on ladder uses a deck list containing 25 or so warlock cards and none of them fall into the class’s identity. Giving up class identity means giving up on hearthstone.
Ok, maybe I must be more specific what class identity means.
If it's your definition, like the one you give for warlock, that would be great if implemented. What I meant to say is that some classes have specific weaknesses that disallow them from playing certain archetypes. And a neutral card like Alex that mitigates some of these weaknesses while being rather expensive is what I would consider a good design choice.
It's true that Alex is currently mostly used in faster decks for reach, but the card is designed in such a way that it should function as a control/combo tool. The reasons why it is used that way are a) the lack of burst in standard in some classes (specifically Paladin and Warrior), b) the combo potential (Tenwu/Shadowstep, for instance), and c) the strength of tempo decks compared to control. A 9-mana 8/8 isn't something you would normally see in tempo lists.
thinking about it, if the do nerf Alex it would be great if the did so in a way that just restricted it’s viability in Tempo decks, rather than changing the card’s effect. It would be a shame to see Control decks hit even furthe I agree.
(For those without an HSR premium account): It is only played in 34% of decks. And of those decks, when it is played it only provides a 54% win rate, barely above rank-average.
I don't see that Ladder could be considered unplayable based on this card. Even if it was played in every single deck, at that win rate, it is slightly above break-even.
What is more likely is that you are facing against decks that are powerful and this is the finisher card. But since it is the last card you see that effectively "breaks the camel's back", it is likely to be the card you remember and thus blame for the loss.
Okay lol if you say so, except it's not broken at all and you're just salty someone got you with it like 2 times. Yes, Alex is really good and pretty much acts as a finisher but there are way more problematic cards out there.
Rarely do you see threads asking for help. The fact that people immediately go into "this card is ridiculous" mode rather than "hey, I'm struggling against this, anyone else feel similar? If not, this is my rank and deck(s) I play, any advice or help?"
It's the short sightedness of it which immediately screams 'you won't be able to reason with me." It just makes me assume you are low rank and your ability is what's wrong. I don't mean that to sound elitist or anything at all, I don't mean it that way. There are plenty of perfectly valid reasons for someone being low rank but in my experience, oeile who are there for a long time usually blame the game and other factors for it. Players who end up being very good tend to look to improve.
It's why I would find it interesting for people to be more open about their rank. Not to judge them and talk down to them but I thin it would put the source of their frustration into context and maybe instead of a bunch of replies telling you it's not a problem, you get more replies suggesting how to play against or around a particular class, deck or card.
Anytime I've watched someone good at this or any other game, a pro player etc, there's generally a theme of advice of "reflect and learn". Fifa players watch back matches and some you tubers even post them pointing out all of their own mistakes as part of this. I've seen hs players say about watching back matches and identifying what you did wrong etc. That's what good players do. They don't typically take to forums to complain and demand nerfs and this tactic is likely a reason so few people have any time for it.
Do you want to get better or do you want an echo chamber? Just be honest.