Starting from rank 15 upwards, 80% of players seem to opt for mage. Tried quite a few decks within the last 4 hrs but it seems the only viable solution to the pyroblast assault is playing mage myself...duh. Time for an anti-meta deck guys, any ideas yet?
Mass taunts doesn't seem to cut it, your damage output is too small and mages happily freeze your board while melting your face...healing spells are subpar too, often dead weight during the first couple of turns.
I'm trying to revive an older deck of mine, serious late-game paladin with mass heals and removal. Mages don't necessarily heal, so you can chip her down slower than most classes. You just need to survive the onslaught of spells and giants, and I think that Paladin can do that.
Anyone want to calculate the max damage of Mage spells and general charge minions?
I am usually not one to wine about "OP" classes, but it should be clear to level headed people that mages stand head and shoulders above the other classes and that this drains the fun out the game.
In the spirit of compromise, I could even tolerate Flamestrike as long as they removed Cone and Blizzard's freezing effect.
You could play a Priest Midrange with some anti-aggro options. High health creatures + some AoE removal + Holy Fire will pretty much own Mages and have a good chance against other aggro.
You could also play a midrange Paladin, with Farseer and Guardian as healing cards that don't lose you tempo.
The primary counter-play to Mages are Mages....When a deck is more readily counter by itself there might be a problem...It's funny I had a daily to get 5 wins as Mage so I threw together a random deck and proceeded to win 5 in a row. All 5 ended with me above 20HP and I froze out the enemy for the last 3-4 turns to navigate their late game... Pretty obnoxious really.
You could play a Priest Midrange with some anti-aggro options. High health creatures + some AoE removal + Holy Fire will pretty much own Mages and have a good chance against other aggro.
You could also play a midrange Paladin, with Farseer and Guardian as healing cards that don't lose you tempo.
Good suggestion. Farseer & Guardian are pretty much the only viable healing cards if you ask me. Pure heals such as Healing Touch & Holy Light don't seem to work out.
Arcane missiles - basically never played; potential 3 dmg
Frostbolt - 3 dmg
Fireball - 6 dmg
Pyro - 10 dmg
Icelance - 4 dmg
--> Potential direct damage via spells: 52...
Charge minions: (Usually just argent commander)
Bluegill warrior - 2dmg
Wolfrider - 3 dmg
Arcane Golem - 4 dmg
Argent Commander - 4 dmg
Leeroy - 6 dmg
--> Potential 28 dmg via charge minons
--> Total potential direct damage = 80 (hahaha) did I forget anything?
LOL you are kidding right? Your logic has a major flaw, you wont draw the whole deck to do all the potential dmg.
There's no logic behind this pal. It's a simple observation of how much potential damage a mage could deal in order to evaluate how much one would effectively have to negate in order to compete with an aggressive mage.
Well you could utilize a spell heavy deck, which would combat alot of mage control. Warloc, druid, overload shaman, and rogue could maybe pull it off.
Warlocks' hero power is directly countered by the underlying theme of these mage decks, druid ramp occasionally works out but isn't consistent enough, rogue doesn't work since you're basically coerced into killing some of their minions with a weapon. Haven't tried shaman, might succeed.
There is counterplay guys, it's called healing. The problem is the healing isn't very useful against non-mages.
Paladins don't have a problem including heal in their play flawlessly or at least with not so much punishment vs. having a "better" card. The idea of a healheavy control paladin came up, when Hunter OTK won the first tournament. There just wasn't a need for it, and the idea vanished. Now with the current magedecks (which easily was countered by Hunter OTK ...), the idea might get a revive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please report toxic behaviour and unwanted threads, so the moderators can deal with them.
I am usually not one to wine about "OP" classes, but it should be clear to level headed people that mages stand head and shoulders above the other classes and that this drains the fun out the game.
In the spirit of compromise, I could even tolerate Flamestrike as long as they removed Cone and Blizzard's freezing effect.
Tolerate flamestrike?? LOL, flamestrike is shit bro.
Shit for who, the caster or the victim? Flamestrike is absolutely devastating to minion heavy meta decks; so much so, that we have to construct our game plan with the knowledge that our board is going to get wiped at turn 7 and probably again around turn 10 or so.
Yeah, I think Flamestrike isn't really worth it on a mage aggro deck. Turn 7 board clear when you probably should win turn eight or so? No, thanks. You'll be better off with CoC and Blizzard in the actual meta.
Would never ditch flamestrike from control, though. Maybe only if I had a Baron Geddon, I'd play him with another flamestrike.
Also, I don't think Mages are OP at all. They're just very straightforward (when it comes to aggro) and generally more solid than all the other straightforward aggro decks. You really won't defeat a mage through attrition, you must play around his spells. Be it through healing (they say healing touch is mostly a dead card, but it practically counters pyroblast on its own), or high health minions, or whatever else. IMO, people need to learn to play against mages. Like they learned to play against priests in the very beginning.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Starting from rank 15 upwards, 80% of players seem to opt for mage. Tried quite a few decks within the last 4 hrs but it seems the only viable solution to the pyroblast assault is playing mage myself...duh. Time for an anti-meta deck guys, any ideas yet?
Mass taunts doesn't seem to cut it, your damage output is too small and mages happily freeze your board while melting your face...healing spells are subpar too, often dead weight during the first couple of turns.
I'm trying to revive an older deck of mine, serious late-game paladin with mass heals and removal. Mages don't necessarily heal, so you can chip her down slower than most classes. You just need to survive the onslaught of spells and giants, and I think that Paladin can do that.
Anyone want to calculate the max damage of Mage spells and general charge minions?
http://www.youtube.com/user/vtxaishi
You're not going crazy, I edit 2~3 times each post
I am usually not one to wine about "OP" classes, but it should be clear to level headed people that mages stand head and shoulders above the other classes and that this drains the fun out the game.
In the spirit of compromise, I could even tolerate Flamestrike as long as they removed Cone and Blizzard's freezing effect.
Arcane missiles - basically never played; potential 3 dmg
Frostbolt - 3 dmg
Fireball - 6 dmg
Pyro - 10 dmg
Icelance - 4 dmg
--> Potential direct damage via spells: 52...
Charge minions: (Usually just argent commander)
Bluegill warrior - 2dmg
Wolfrider - 3 dmg
Arcane Golem - 4 dmg
Argent Commander - 4 dmg
Leeroy - 6 dmg
--> Potential 28 dmg via charge minons
--> Total potential direct damage = 80 (hahaha) did I forget anything?
My problem is lack of counter play to a mage. It's win on turn 11 or lose.
There is counterplay guys, it's called healing. The problem is the healing isn't very useful against non-mages.
Want a cool signature like mine? Click Here!
You could play a Priest Midrange with some anti-aggro options. High health creatures + some AoE removal + Holy Fire will pretty much own Mages and have a good chance against other aggro.
You could also play a midrange Paladin, with Farseer and Guardian as healing cards that don't lose you tempo.
The primary counter-play to Mages are Mages....When a deck is more readily counter by itself there might be a problem...It's funny I had a daily to get 5 wins as Mage so I threw together a random deck and proceeded to win 5 in a row. All 5 ended with me above 20HP and I froze out the enemy for the last 3-4 turns to navigate their late game... Pretty obnoxious really.
Good suggestion. Farseer & Guardian are pretty much the only viable healing cards if you ask me. Pure heals such as Healing Touch & Holy Light don't seem to work out.
Well you could utilize a spell heavy deck, which would combat alot of mage control. Warloc, druid, overload shaman, and rogue could maybe pull it off.
There's no logic behind this pal. It's a simple observation of how much potential damage a mage could deal in order to evaluate how much one would effectively have to negate in order to compete with an aggressive mage.
Warlocks' hero power is directly countered by the underlying theme of these mage decks, druid ramp occasionally works out but isn't consistent enough, rogue doesn't work since you're basically coerced into killing some of their minions with a weapon. Haven't tried shaman, might succeed.
In the recent 2P tournament, the CN druid decks each packed a single copy of healing touch.
Paladins don't have a problem including heal in their play flawlessly or at least with not so much punishment vs. having a "better" card.
The idea of a healheavy control paladin came up, when Hunter OTK won the first tournament. There just wasn't a need for it, and the idea vanished.
Now with the current magedecks (which easily was countered by Hunter OTK ...), the idea might get a revive.
Please report toxic behaviour and unwanted threads, so the moderators can deal with them.
Druid does it well
Shit for who, the caster or the victim? Flamestrike is absolutely devastating to minion heavy meta decks; so much so, that we have to construct our game plan with the knowledge that our board is going to get wiped at turn 7 and probably again around turn 10 or so.
Apparently none of the higher ranked mages actually runs flamestrike. freezing is more efficient.
That would be news for the mages at the Managrind tournament, 3/4 of whom ran flamestrikes.
Yeah, I think Flamestrike isn't really worth it on a mage aggro deck. Turn 7 board clear when you probably should win turn eight or so? No, thanks. You'll be better off with CoC and Blizzard in the actual meta.
Would never ditch flamestrike from control, though. Maybe only if I had a Baron Geddon, I'd play him with another flamestrike.
Also, I don't think Mages are OP at all. They're just very straightforward (when it comes to aggro) and generally more solid than all the other straightforward aggro decks. You really won't defeat a mage through attrition, you must play around his spells. Be it through healing (they say healing touch is mostly a dead card, but it practically counters pyroblast on its own), or high health minions, or whatever else. IMO, people need to learn to play against mages. Like they learned to play against priests in the very beginning.