⚙
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Alright, there are some comments here that's getting on my nerves, so I guess I'll respond to them.
First, no, Blizzard didn't ban a card because they wanted to "hide their shame". They banned it because they were still figuring out the best nerf for it.
Second, this ban is a one-off thing, and pretty much will NEVER happen again. Stop asking for bans in this case.
I personally think you're wrong on both counts
I don't think blizz banned a card because they wanted to hide their shame (what an idiotic way to put it, but still) but I don't think they banned it because they're still "figuring out" anything either. It seems clear to me that they want this card to be part of standard as it is, possibly because of interactions with future expansions, and they don't want to have to nerf a card for wild's sake only (hysteria was also puzzling since there were wild-only cards that could have been hit for the tiller combo, but apparently they were fine to nerf it for standard too anyway). Especially since warlock in standard is like the worst class of all, with a single viable archetype (the only other class in the same condition is hunter, with the difference that its only archetype is actually good) that's been stuck in tier 4 since the rotation happened. At least mage had the limelight for a while. So no, I don't think they want to nerf it in any way, unless it actually breaks standard (and warlocks have so little consistent healing that I really don't see it happening).
I also don't really bank on it never happening again. Like with all things, if you do it once, you're more likely to do it twice, it's basic human nature. I can certainly see another card in the future getting banned from wild because of some degen combo (and it's not like stealer of souls decks were higher than tier 2) but kept in the same form for standard. I'd rather it not happen, to be honest, since I think it's not exactly ideal, but after they decided to actually ban a card, if you told me they'd do it again in the future I wouldn't be surprised.
What is unquestionably stupid is asking for bans for cards that are wild-only. You don't ban cards from wild, you just nerf them just like it would have happened to stealer of souls, had it been a wild-only card.
And on top of this, against degenerate OTK combo decks, which are far from rare in Wild, Reno is nothing more than a 6 mana 4/6. It doesn't reset anything when your opponent has no interest in killing you with chip damage.
Stealer on the other hand, is overpowered every game.
The op is just an aggro player who hates when he doesn't win on turn 6 because he hates Reno so much he never plays around it.
TI think this will not be the first time we see a ban from wild. However, they actually admitted this would be just temporary, at the very least because they are aware eventually Stealer of Souls will get out of standard due to yearly rotations. So they are thinking of ways to deal with it while keeping the essence of the card.
I personally think it did'nt have to end like this, like "make this a 3/6 that only changes the first card drawn each turn". That said, we have seen more than enough nerfs that killed cards or did nothing, so if they require more time to make a competent change to the card, I am ok with it.
So far only chance of dealing with Stealer of Souls was either aggro paladin with Oh My Yogg! or secret mage... everything else is plain suicide or another Stealer of Souls. Reno has a lot of matches where it just does nothing. And unlike any other OTK key card is: 1) A non-legendary card you need only one copy of (Sorcerer's Apprentice often requires more than 1, and so does Flamewaker) 2) A non battlecry-minion.
Those things mean stuff like Dirty Rat, Deathlord, Ancestral Calling and Vol'jin Shadowhunter are a lot less useful. Wich means most classes have no realistic chance of fighting back.
Click to see my Hearthstone projects:
^This.
But I dont think its enough to ban the taunt minions, we also need to ban cards that give taunt to minions like Defender of Argus.
What a waste of Internet space.
Take a walk on the wild side...
Please, do not be deluded, if Blizzard has banned this card is precisely because they wanted to "hide their shame":
They had no idea how to solve a problem that they themselves had created thanks to their irresponsibility and carelessness, so they opted for the easiest and fastest solution, solution which, to make matters worse, completely destroys the premise of the wild mode.
And mark my words, this will not be the first time we see a card banned from Wild: a dangerous precedent has been set... From now on, every time Blizzard consider a card to be somewhat problematic, they will not hesitate to ban it, hiding it under the rug as if it did not exist.
The first shot has already been fired, so it does not surprise me at all that a multitude of people have already started requesting bans left and right.
They haven't banished the card though, it's effect is most likely relevant to standard, which is why they haven't changed or nerfed it. They've said they will alter the card when it rotates, it's just a temporary ban essentially.
What you're asking with Reno is basically what? To delete the card? Wild is the only place it can be used so if they ban it, the card just dies. So it isn't a precedent in the way you're perceiving it, it's a precedent in that if there's a card in standard that they want to work as described but is a problem in wild, then they might ban that card until rotation, at which point they change it so it isn't a problem in the same way.
You're not seriously thinking that...right?
Here, I'll put it plainly: nerf the card to 6 mana.
Wow, that was difficult, wasn't it? I bet people at team 5 could never get to such a revolutionary resolution to a problem caused by a card being overpowered (more overplayed than overpowered in quite a few instances, but the point still stands). That by itself would have literally destroyed all decks in wild because now 6 mana is your minimum for the combo IF you discount the stealer twice (big fat if) and by the usual turn you can play it (i.e. turn 8) you're dead to pretty much everything in wild, and if you're not you've been illucia'd, dirty ratted, whatever else.
Now, if you're seriously suggesting that team 5 had no idea how to solve a problem they themselves created (you have a penchant for pointlessly overdramatising everything, don't you? Who on earth would create problems with cards created if not the team that creates them?) when they could have applied the same solution that has always been used for nerfs (i.e. mana change)...well, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, dear lad.
The point, once again, is not that they couldn't think of a solution omg the world will die run around waving arms, the point is pretty clearly that they wanted to try something different than what they usually do. You can kind of tell that they did it on purpose because the card sees, quite literally, no play in standard. It wouldn't have been any skin off their noses to nerf it to 6 mana and no one playing standard would have batted a single eye at that. So why did they decide to, instead, act in an unprecedented way? Your guess is as good as mine but while they've messed with card power etc so many times, I tend to think that a team that already knows the cards coming out for the next year knows a smidge more about how they interact with stealer of souls.
Or maybe they're just tired of having to nerf cards when they're only problems in wild. You might as well say "but it's their job to design cards so that they work in both modes (duels too...I suppose?) and I agree with that, but the kneejerk reaction of the first ever ban certainly seems like a "man, we're tired of cards we like having to be nerfed because of wild". I agree that it also sets a rather dangerous precedent that is likely to be reiterated upon in the future. It also opened the floodgates to a number of people who not only don't get what a ban is but they just want cards they don't like to be banned.
Just please don't say "oh, they were incapable of fixing their mistake to hide their shaaaaaaaaaaaame uhhuhuhuhuhuh" because seriously, any schmuck who'd read patch notes once in his life would have been able to fix this mistake. And by making team 5 sound like toddlers you pretty shamelessly decide to gloss over the actual intricacies tied to this decision.
And I pretty much play wild only so I personally would rather wild had all the cards without this banning nonsense but might as well sit back and see what's next.
Reno does not consistently win the game on turn 4/5 by making every card in your deck free to play. No idea how you can even compare both. Banning a card probably need a better reason than "don't like it".
Ignoring the fact that Reno Jackson is Wild-exclusive and that strong survival conditions aren't as concerning as strong win conditions, one of the main issues with Stealer of Souls was that the Wild decks it was found in were difficult to disrupt. Conversely, Reno Jackson can be disrupted by Bad Luck Albatross, bombs, and other shuffle mechanics, on top of generic anti-Battlecry techs. Alternatively, you can just play faster aggro decks.
Great post
Did you know I play wild just cuz of reno ? Did you know that this card is played in all 10 classes ? basically 10 different decks.. this thread is a waste of internet space lmao just like someone said up there what ever it is you're trying to say mr aggro player will never happen I promise you ^^
Chip damage is, 100%, important to a lot of OTK combos. It allows a smaller/safer combo turn if you've chipped your opp down to 22ish. Same as freezemage's gameplan against Renolock before wild; chip away, get burst heal used, then go for things, or simply burst from 22ish. Now, Freeze didn't OTK that often, but any maly-based OTK will be similar. I tend to play janky OTKs (Malygos shaman is my main deck, though I've used hunter before, too). Reno also walls these decks when paired with IB, which is annoying, but that's hard counters for you.
Stealer and Reno, however, really can't be compared. Reno is very different - I feel it's bad for the game, but it's an idea that blizz really like, and it's for a very different reason that I dislike it:
1) Burst healing of that magnitude adds variance based on drawing by T6 against aggro, and the entire singleton mechanic adds variance.
2) Burst healing, particularly to the extent where you've got Raza priests healing to full four times, which I have seen before, pushed towards OTKs, which most people dislike. So much healing just obviates control because you will struggle to kill without OTKs.
3) Singleton decks being pushed means less control tools can be printed, else the singleton decks lose their drawbacks. This pushes all control builds into playing singleton, which we saw pre-wild's creation. This has been solved to some extent by Wild existing, but rears its head every few sets when they push the mechanic in STD, but is part of why I feel it's a really bad design decision by Blizz to create such cards.
However, Blizz like singleton decks, as do the community, so all I can do is build around it as much as possible.
FWIW - judging by the HSReplays data, Reno typically has the fifth or sixth best "win-rate when drawn" in the decks that play him. About 10% of Reno decks in Wild don't actually run the card that gives the archetype its name . . .
The devs have explained their banning philosophy - clearly, they will nerf "Wild only" cards, rather than ban them, reserving bans for cards that bust up Wild, but don't have any impact on Standard. No other cards come close to being banned at the moment.
- thread locked -
I think you ain't getting this right. Getting chip damage is an art form, but it gets less and less needed. Gone were the days rogue or freeze mage having to calculate every sort of risk/reward. OTKuns have pretty much always more than 30 damage on combo, Razakus have pretty much infinite chip damage and of course, can apply more than 30 damage as well, Mecha'thun could'nt care less, Uther of the Ebon Blade could'nt care less, mage has absurd ammounts of damage and can easily slam dunk from 30, both APM and Time Warp, Il'gynoth demon hunter can reach up to 120 damage or so.
1) So far I thought variance was good, as it makes the matches not be all the same all the time. That said, while drawing Reno and/or Zephrys become one of the main objectives of those matchups, usually you still need a lot more to survive till you can play Reno (wich usually means further than turn 6 because of how you can't always draw Reno turn 6). And by my own experience, you can also find yourself actually not needing reno for survival,, or needing reno for a non-aggro matchup, just in case.
2) In wild exist far more than enough stuff to annoy reno decks at this moment. Dirty Rat, that anti-battlecry Loatheb, Mutanus, Tickatus, Explosive Runes or Potion of Polymorph, any sort of shuffle... and of course, out-aggroing the deck. And of course there are those classes who can develop board after board of buffed up minions that can outgun the reno deck. Thinking on cubelock, big priest, jade druid, jade shaman, dragon druid... and of course, unless the reno deck has a consistent win condition, you can also fatigue it, like warrior does. Reno decks are very strong for their variety of possible outcomes and flexibility, but they use to not be as straightforward as other decks and that may also play in its disadvantage for opening more room for mistakes. Also, can be milled. However, I will guess it still makes people like OTK decks more, as more renos mean more control matchups, wich are better for most OTKs because they have more time to draw their cards.
3) Ermmm, do you know that Reno Jackson was printed in League of Explorers, right? Aka "the last expansion before wild was created". Reno was in standard up to Witchwood, and between League of Explorers and Kobolds and Catacombs, there never were more Reno decks than duplicate control decks. In fact, many expansions had Reno Jackson being totally out of the meta, hell, Zephrys and Dragonqueen Alexstrasza made more of an impact in the standard meta than Reno himself did (in standard, nowadays in wild is the big shot of the three). If Blizz feels like it does'nt draw enough control cards it's mostly because they often fail to balance the removal tools, the survival, the draws, and the win conditions, but when it does it's just huge, like Cubelock or Big Shaman.
Click to see my Hearthstone projects:
...umm...na.
Gtfo here OP troll
The post feels like
- The opponent had 1 hp left, I literally had lethal next turn, but he played Reno, I HATE IT!!!! Ban, please!
*facepalm*