Why? I don't think I've ever seen anyone from Blizzard elaborating about this. The only reason I can see is that it can be really frustrating for newbies and lowbies, and they're the ones that spend the most amount of money in the game, so basically allowing OTKs would mean less casuals in the game, thus less money for Blizzard. That's not even a good reason, by the way.
In the end arguments about balance and viability won't affect Blizzard's decision to take action against this OTK deck. It has more to do with the casual player base becoming frustrated when facing it. You only have to look at their previous nerfs to recognize the pattern.
Hunter OTK wasn't that strong, but it was destroyed. The Buzzard was easy enough for people to deal with at high levels, but it was made useless for early game whatsoever. Freeze mages were strong because of Ice Block mainly, yet they nerved every single freeze spell because it's "frustrating" to play against. Mind Control had been countered by meta, yet it still received a nerf.
There are definitely counters to the Warrior OTK, but that doesn't matter to Blizzard as much as how frustrated casuals are getting playing against it. I'd expect some change to come regardless of the deck's overall viability.
From what I've seen it actually is a very strong deck if built and played properly. The #1 ranked Legend player (StrifeCro) was talking about this today in the Turn2 podcast (http://ihearthu.com/turn2-episode-12/) - that the #2 ranked player has beaten him many times using a version of the warrior OTK deck. The fact that it is very effective, incredibly annoying to play against, and probably abuses the charge mechanic in an unintended way could definitely result in a nerf. I like the idea of raising the mana cost of Molten Giant slightly, to 23 or 25.
Omfg, that warrior is SO bad... He used cleave on the dumbest targets (a loot hoarder/1-1 and a 2-1 and a 1-1), went for face with loot hoarder when he could have killed a 2 drop with it (and it just died to a divine shielded 1-1), some turns he'd armor up, others he'd forget. He burned inner rage killing a 1-1. The guy had NO IDEA how to play a warrior deck. He was frantically clearing the board of 1-1s the entire game, rather than just taking the damage. Playing 2 shield blocks was retarded, because he was under no pressure. His deck was also a pretty poor version.
Don't use that game as an example, that warrior guy obviously just net-decked and had no idea how to play it.
EDIT: Omfg, the pali was running goldshire footman. This game had to be between rank 20 players lol
EDIT 2: You actually can't prove that was even on OTK deck. He didn't play a single card from the combo, ever. It's probably he had some type of OTK, but he never played ANYTHING lol.
He was using goldshire footman to show that you don't need uber decks to beat the warrior otks. Go through his other videos, he made like 5 of them, some with priests and shaman, showing how he beats the warrior otk decks with them.
For people complaining about the Warrior OTK: Watch this video. It's hilarious.
*Video*
The guy does nothing but plays paladin 1/1 minions all game and only attacks to take down the warrior's armor. The warrior can't do anything but remove minions all game because he never gets low enough to play his giants. And since warriors load their decks with card-draws to land their combo, the warrior consistently has a full hand and loses cards to that full hand, because he has nothing to play. And since the paladin can always make more minions, the warrior just can't keep clearing the board. Eventually the warrior runs out of stuff to play and gets rushed down once his health gets close to molten giant range.
This is why you can afford to stick a couple alternative win conditions in there like Alexstrasza/Gorehowl, Raging Worgen/Inner Rage etc. OTK player was shit. Probably.
But then you're getting into gorehowl/alex/warrior mechanics that have nothing to do with the molten giant itself, which was the focus of this thread specifically.
But then you're getting into gorehowl/alex/warrior mechanics that have nothing to do with the molten giant itself, which was the focus of this thread specifically.
Was critiquing the deck. Also the video wasn't exemplary of a well-played OTK deck and how to beat it, so your example was deeply flawed from the outset. Have that guy play against Razor piloting his own deck and see where it goes.
[Edit 1]Basically, anyone can cite a video of a guy playing shrewdly against a complete retard playing an unoptimized net deck, but that doesn't make it viable. People have been saying getting the warrior to half health and then bursting him down in a turn was a good idea from the beginning, video proof of a guy playing against a trained bonobo using Razor's deck is proof of nothing in terms of determining the relative balance of Molten Giant in specific.
[Edit 2]Also, if you have to be a paladin or shaman playing a very specific strategy to efficiently deal with OTK warriors, that does more to prove the imbalance inherent in Molten Giant than it does to debunk it.
Quote from soysauceonrice»But then you're getting into gorehowl/alex/warrior mechanics that have nothing to do with the molten giant itself, which was the focus of this thread specifically.
Was critiquing the deck. Also the video wasn't exemplary of a well-played OTK deck and how to beat it, so your example was deeply flawed from the outset. Have that guy play against Razor piloting his own deck and see where it goes.
Basically, anyone can cite a video of a guy playing shrewdly against a complete retard playing an unoptimized net deck, but that doesn't make it viable. People have been saying getting the warrior to half health and then bursting him down in a turn was a good idea from the beginning, video proof of a guy playing against a trained bonobo using Razor's deck is proof of nothing in terms of determining the relative balance of Molten Giant in specific.
Well if you want to critique Razor's deck specifically, his deck doesn't run alex/gorehowl. That deck only relies on the giants, warsong, and worgen as the backup condition.
Quote from soysauceonrice»But then you're getting into gorehowl/alex/warrior mechanics that have nothing to do with the molten giant itself, which was the focus of this thread specifically.
Was critiquing the deck. Also the video wasn't exemplary of a well-played OTK deck and how to beat it, so your example was deeply flawed from the outset. Have that guy play against Razor piloting his own deck and see where it goes.
Basically, anyone can cite a video of a guy playing shrewdly against a complete retard playing an unoptimized net deck, but that doesn't make it viable. People have been saying getting the warrior to half health and then bursting him down in a turn was a good idea from the beginning, video proof of a guy playing against a trained bonobo using Razor's deck is proof of nothing in terms of determining the relative balance of Molten Giant in specific.
Well if you want to critique Razor's deck specifically, his deck doesn't run alex/gorehowl. That deck only relies on the giants, warsong, and worgen as the backup condition.
Didn't watch the video, not sure if the shill on the other side of the table is even running Razor's deck. Razor's deck does have the Raging Worgen finisher, however, and I'm not sure if the guy played it because ain't nobody got time for that.
That being said, the point to that post and all the edits was basically that your stance as a Molten Giant apologist that you've been championing since you found your way into this thread isn't actually supported by the video.
Quote from soysauceonrice»But then you're getting into gorehowl/alex/warrior mechanics that have nothing to do with the molten giant itself, which was the focus of this thread specifically.
Was critiquing the deck. Also the video wasn't exemplary of a well-played OTK deck and how to beat it, so your example was deeply flawed from the outset. Have that guy play against Razor piloting his own deck and see where it goes.
Basically, anyone can cite a video of a guy playing shrewdly against a complete retard playing an unoptimized net deck, but that doesn't make it viable. People have been saying getting the warrior to half health and then bursting him down in a turn was a good idea from the beginning, video proof of a guy playing against a trained bonobo using Razor's deck is proof of nothing in terms of determining the relative balance of Molten Giant in specific.
Well if you want to critique Razor's deck specifically, his deck doesn't run alex/gorehowl. That deck only relies on the giants, warsong, and worgen as the backup condition.
Didn't watch the video, not sure if the shill on the other side of the table is even running Razor's deck. Razor's deck does have the Raging Worgen finisher, however, and I'm not sure if the guy played it because ain't nobody got time for that.
That being said, the point to that post and all the edits was basically that your stance as a Molten Giant apologist that you've been championing since you found your way into this thread isn't actually supported by the video.
Apparently you don't have time for much -- such as figuring out how to beat the deck -- yet you still have plenty of time to respond to me and complain about the MG. Here, I'll spoonfeed you another video. I can't guarantee that he's playing Razor's deck, since he never got low enough to play giants, but I do see a brawl and worgens in there, so your guess is as good as mine.
If you don't attack the warrior, he can't do anything. People keep saying "well don't damage him past 15 !" No. This is bad advice. Don't attack him period; only attack to take off armor. He will try and take himself down past 15 by swinging into your minions.
Didn't watch the video, not sure if the shill on the other side of the table is even running Razor's deck. Razor's deck does have the Raging Worgen finisher, however, and I'm not sure if the guy played it because ain't nobody got time for that.
That being said, the point to that post and all the edits was basically that your stance as a Molten Giant apologist that you've been championing since you found your way into this thread isn't actually supported by the video.
Apparently you don't have time for much -- such as figuring out how to beat the deck -- yet you still have plenty of time to respond to me and complain about the MG. Here, I'll spoonfeed you another video. I can't guarantee that he's playing Razor's deck, since he never got low enough to play giants, but I do see a brawl and worgens in there, so your guess is as good as mine.
If you don't attack the warrior, he can't do anything. People keep saying "well don't damage him past 15 !" No. This is bad advice. Don't attack him period; only attack to take off armor. He will try and take himself down past 15 by swinging into your minions.
You're pretty dense. Nobody here is saying the OTK warrior deck is unbeatable. Nobody here is saying that Molten Giants are overpowered because of the OTK warrior deck, the OTK warrior deck is simply a mechanically abusive context for the Giant that underscores ways in which it can be abused.
Your videos are proof of nothing. Stop putting words into my mouth, thinking that I'm whinging about Warrior OTK.
To summarize, I think Molten Giants are imbalanced because the decks that abuse them are boring to play against.
Quote from soysauceonrice»But then you're getting into gorehowl/alex/warrior mechanics that have nothing to do with the molten giant itself, which was the focus of this thread specifically.
Was critiquing the deck. Also the video wasn't exemplary of a well-played OTK deck and how to beat it, so your example was deeply flawed from the outset. Have that guy play against Razor piloting his own deck and see where it goes.
Basically, anyone can cite a video of a guy playing shrewdly against a complete retard playing an unoptimized net deck, but that doesn't make it viable. People have been saying getting the warrior to half health and then bursting him down in a turn was a good idea from the beginning, video proof of a guy playing against a trained bonobo using Razor's deck is proof of nothing in terms of determining the relative balance of Molten Giant in specific.
Well if you want to critique Razor's deck specifically, his deck doesn't run alex/gorehowl. That deck only relies on the giants, warsong, and worgen as the backup condition.
Didn't watch the video, not sure if the shill on the other side of the table is even running Razor's deck. Razor's deck does have the Raging Worgen finisher, however, and I'm not sure if the guy played it because ain't nobody got time for that.
That being said, the point to that post and all the edits was basically that your stance as a Molten Giant apologist that you've been championing since you found your way into this thread isn't actually supported by the video.
Apparently you don't have time for much -- such as figuring out how to beat the deck -- yet you still have plenty of time to respond to me and complain about the MG. Here, I'll spoonfeed you another video. I can't guarantee that he's playing Razor's deck, since he never got low enough to play giants, but I do see a brawl and worgens in there, so your guess is as good as mine.
If you don't attack the warrior, he can't do anything. People keep saying "well don't damage him past 15 !" No. This is bad advice. Don't attack him period; only attack to take off armor. He will try and take himself down past 15 by swinging into your minions.
Those games all look really boring, which is something Blizzard is actively trying to eliminate. These videos will only encourage Blizzard to make changes to the deck.
Those games all look really boring, which is something Blizzard is actively trying to eliminate. These videos will only encourage Blizzard to make changes to the deck.
Sigh, I just lost a constructed game against a deck seemingly identical to mine, but it had molten giants. Got him down to 11 HP with nothing but board control, when suddenly two molten giants and argus, while still having mana for consecrate. So unfair T_T
Quote from soysauceonrice»But then you're getting into gorehowl/alex/warrior mechanics that have nothing to do with the molten giant itself, which was the focus of this thread specifically.
Was critiquing the deck. Also the video wasn't exemplary of a well-played OTK deck and how to beat it, so your example was deeply flawed from the outset. Have that guy play against Razor piloting his own deck and see where it goes.
Basically, anyone can cite a video of a guy playing shrewdly against a complete retard playing an unoptimized net deck, but that doesn't make it viable. People have been saying getting the warrior to half health and then bursting him down in a turn was a good idea from the beginning, video proof of a guy playing against a trained bonobo using Razor's deck is proof of nothing in terms of determining the relative balance of Molten Giant in specific.
Well if you want to critique Razor's deck specifically, his deck doesn't run alex/gorehowl. That deck only relies on the giants, warsong, and worgen as the backup condition.
Didn't watch the video, not sure if the shill on the other side of the table is even running Razor's deck. Razor's deck does have the Raging Worgen finisher, however, and I'm not sure if the guy played it because ain't nobody got time for that.
That being said, the point to that post and all the edits was basically that your stance as a Molten Giant apologist that you've been championing since you found your way into this thread isn't actually supported by the video.
Apparently you don't have time for much -- such as figuring out how to beat the deck -- yet you still have plenty of time to respond to me and complain about the MG. Here, I'll spoonfeed you another video. I can't guarantee that he's playing Razor's deck, since he never got low enough to play giants, but I do see a brawl and worgens in there, so your guess is as good as mine.
If you don't attack the warrior, he can't do anything. People keep saying "well don't damage him past 15 !" No. This is bad advice. Don't attack him period; only attack to take off armor. He will try and take himself down past 15 by swinging into your minions.
Those games all look really boring, which is something Blizzard is actively trying to eliminate. These videos will only encourage Blizzard to make changes to the deck.
I guess following this logic priests are due for a nerf because a priest mirror match-up is as exciting as watching my grandmother play bingo.
I guess following this logic priests are due for a nerf because a priest mirror match-up is as exciting as watching my grandmother play bingo.
Straw man. Funny straw man, but still straw man. Priest was nerfed already though, mostly because people already have to play around their removal, and having to play around Mind Control at the same time meant that Priest as a class was modifying the metagame too much just to marginalize it. Even at 10 mana they still have literally the best unconditional removal in the entire game.
Still isn't a case for Molten Giant. Stop trying to obfuscate the issue with this card by trying to toss others under the bus.
I guess following this logic priests are due for a nerf because a priest mirror match-up is as exciting as watching my grandmother play bingo.
Straw man. Funny straw man, but still straw man. Priest was nerfed already though, mostly because people already have to play around their removal, and having to play around Mind Control at the same time meant that Priest as a class was modifying the metagame too much just to marginalize it. Even at 10 mana they still have literally the best unconditional removal in the entire game.
Still isn't a case for Molten Giant. Stop trying to obfuscate the issue with this card by trying to toss others under the bus.
Lol. Well aren't you fancy with your big words. Look at the post I quoted champ.
He said: The match is boring, and thus this is justification for a change.
I said: If boring was a valid reason for instigating nerfs, then priests would be next up on the chopping block, because priest mirror match-ups are boring incarnate.
That isn't a strawman -- that's extrapolating his logic and applying it to show why his logic is faulty. Boring is not a criteria for nerfs. A card or class being OP is. The molten giant isn't OP.
EDIT* Strifecro, the #1 ranked legend player on NA is testing out a OTK warrior/MG deck on his stream right now. He wins some, and he loses some. Go get educated.
I guess following this logic priests are due for a nerf because a priest mirror match-up is as exciting as watching my grandmother play bingo.
Straw man. Funny straw man, but still straw man. Priest was nerfed already though, mostly because people already have to play around their removal, and having to play around Mind Control at the same time meant that Priest as a class was modifying the metagame too much just to marginalize it. Even at 10 mana they still have literally the best unconditional removal in the entire game.
Still isn't a case for Molten Giant. Stop trying to obfuscate the issue with this card by trying to toss others under the bus.
Lol. Well aren't you fancy with your big words. Look at the post I quoted champ.
He said: The match is boring, and thus this is justification for a change.
I said: If boring was a valid reason for instigating nerfs, then priests would be next up on the chopping block, because priest mirror match-ups are boring incarnate.
That isn't a strawman -- that's extrapolating his logic and applying it to show why his logic is faulty. Boring is not a criteria for nerfs. A card or class being OP is. The molten giant isn't OP.
EDIT* Strifecro, the #1 ranked legend player on NA is testing out a OTK warrior/MG deck on his stream right now. He wins some, and he loses some. Go get educated.
Strifecro himself said he refuses to help people test the OTK molten deck because he hates it. Also boring is absolutely a criteria for changing a game that's still in beta. Boring is anti-fun, and Blizzard wants their game to be fun. Is this not game design 101?
When arguing for or against something, taking your interpretation of someone's argument and applying it to something else isn't a valid means of expressing your own opinions. You can oftentimes be accused of twisting what was said as a means of shoehorning it to fit your own agenda.
And judging by your previous posts here, your agenda is to defend Molten Giants despite the fact that the decks they tend to appear in will either play like a piece of shit for one or both parties involved or steal victory from the jaws of defeat. They're anti-skill and anti-fun in the vast majority of applications they find themselves in.
And yes, I'm incredibly fucking fancy with my big words.
Lol. Well aren't you fancy with your big words. Look at the post I quoted champ.
He said: The match is boring, and thus this is justification for a change.
I said: If boring was a valid reason for instigating nerfs, then priests would be next up on the chopping block, because priest mirror match-ups are boring incarnate.
That isn't a strawman -- that's extrapolating his logic and applying it to show why his logic is faulty. Boring is not a criteria for nerfs. A card or class being OP is. The molten giant isn't OP.
EDIT* Strifecro, the #1 ranked legend player on NA is testing out a OTK warrior/MG deck on his stream right now. He wins some, and he loses some. Go get educated.
Anyway, priest vs priest, though boring to watch, is actually pretty fun. You constantly have to consider what they have when playing.... well, anything. Most decks atm the thought process is just "Play as many minions as possible"
Lol. Well aren't you fancy with your big words. Look at the post I quoted champ.
He said: The match is boring, and thus this is justification for a change.
I said: If boring was a valid reason for instigating nerfs, then priests would be next up on the chopping block, because priest mirror match-ups are boring incarnate.
That isn't a strawman -- that's extrapolating his logic and applying it to show why his logic is faulty. Boring is not a criteria for nerfs. A card or class being OP is. The molten giant isn't OP.
EDIT* Strifecro, the #1 ranked legend player on NA is testing out a OTK warrior/MG deck on his stream right now. He wins some, and he loses some. Go get educated.
Anyway, priest vs priest, though boring to watch, is actually pretty fun. You constantly have to consider what they have when playing.... well, anything. Most decks atm the thought process is just "Play as many minions as possible"
You should go ask your community college for your money back because while you can clearly read and do research on what a straw-man is, your application of the principle is absolute fail. I did not distort, fabricate, or exaggerate his position. I took his position, applied it reasonably, and showed him why it was faulty.
Him: Matchup A is boring > boring is bad and should be changed > matchup A will be changed.
Me: Matchup B is also boring > if boring is bad and should be changed, > does that mean match up B should be changed ?
You: OMG STRAWMANNN !!!
His position was that boring is what Blizzard should actively try to change. I did not exaggerate this position or fabricate this position, I merely applied it. So if, HYPOTHETICALLY, someone said "all divine shield minions are OP". If i asked, "does that mean Silvermoon Guardian is OP?" That's not me straw-manning his position -- that's me applying his logic to test his position. That's all I'm doing here, applying and testing his claim.
So explain to me how I changed his logic to make it ridiculous. And try doing it without having a random internet link do the work for you.
It's a good reason for Blizzard.
In the end arguments about balance and viability won't affect Blizzard's decision to take action against this OTK deck. It has more to do with the casual player base becoming frustrated when facing it. You only have to look at their previous nerfs to recognize the pattern.
Hunter OTK wasn't that strong, but it was destroyed. The Buzzard was easy enough for people to deal with at high levels, but it was made useless for early game whatsoever. Freeze mages were strong because of Ice Block mainly, yet they nerved every single freeze spell because it's "frustrating" to play against. Mind Control had been countered by meta, yet it still received a nerf.
There are definitely counters to the Warrior OTK, but that doesn't matter to Blizzard as much as how frustrated casuals are getting playing against it. I'd expect some change to come regardless of the deck's overall viability.
From what I've seen it actually is a very strong deck if built and played properly. The #1 ranked Legend player (StrifeCro) was talking about this today in the Turn2 podcast (http://ihearthu.com/turn2-episode-12/) - that the #2 ranked player has beaten him many times using a version of the warrior OTK deck. The fact that it is very effective, incredibly annoying to play against, and probably abuses the charge mechanic in an unintended way could definitely result in a nerf. I like the idea of raising the mana cost of Molten Giant slightly, to 23 or 25.
He was using goldshire footman to show that you don't need uber decks to beat the warrior otks. Go through his other videos, he made like 5 of them, some with priests and shaman, showing how he beats the warrior otk decks with them.
But then you're getting into gorehowl/alex/warrior mechanics that have nothing to do with the molten giant itself, which was the focus of this thread specifically.
Was critiquing the deck. Also the video wasn't exemplary of a well-played OTK deck and how to beat it, so your example was deeply flawed from the outset. Have that guy play against Razor piloting his own deck and see where it goes.
[Edit 1]Basically, anyone can cite a video of a guy playing shrewdly against a complete retard playing an unoptimized net deck, but that doesn't make it viable. People have been saying getting the warrior to half health and then bursting him down in a turn was a good idea from the beginning, video proof of a guy playing against a trained bonobo using Razor's deck is proof of nothing in terms of determining the relative balance of Molten Giant in specific.
[Edit 2]Also, if you have to be a paladin or shaman playing a very specific strategy to efficiently deal with OTK warriors, that does more to prove the imbalance inherent in Molten Giant than it does to debunk it.
Well if you want to critique Razor's deck specifically, his deck doesn't run alex/gorehowl. That deck only relies on the giants, warsong, and worgen as the backup condition.
Didn't watch the video, not sure if the shill on the other side of the table is even running Razor's deck. Razor's deck does have the Raging Worgen finisher, however, and I'm not sure if the guy played it because ain't nobody got time for that.
That being said, the point to that post and all the edits was basically that your stance as a Molten Giant apologist that you've been championing since you found your way into this thread isn't actually supported by the video.
Apparently you don't have time for much -- such as figuring out how to beat the deck -- yet you still have plenty of time to respond to me and complain about the MG. Here, I'll spoonfeed you another video. I can't guarantee that he's playing Razor's deck, since he never got low enough to play giants, but I do see a brawl and worgens in there, so your guess is as good as mine.
If you don't attack the warrior, he can't do anything. People keep saying "well don't damage him past 15 !" No. This is bad advice. Don't attack him period; only attack to take off armor. He will try and take himself down past 15 by swinging into your minions.
You're pretty dense. Nobody here is saying the OTK warrior deck is unbeatable. Nobody here is saying that Molten Giants are overpowered because of the OTK warrior deck, the OTK warrior deck is simply a mechanically abusive context for the Giant that underscores ways in which it can be abused.
Your videos are proof of nothing. Stop putting words into my mouth, thinking that I'm whinging about Warrior OTK.
To summarize, I think Molten Giants are imbalanced because the decks that abuse them are boring to play against.
Those games all look really boring, which is something Blizzard is actively trying to eliminate. These videos will only encourage Blizzard to make changes to the deck.
Thank you.
Sigh, I just lost a constructed game against a deck seemingly identical to mine, but it had molten giants. Got him down to 11 HP with nothing but board control, when suddenly two molten giants and argus, while still having mana for consecrate. So unfair T_T
Want a cool signature like mine? Click Here!
I guess following this logic priests are due for a nerf because a priest mirror match-up is as exciting as watching my grandmother play bingo.
Straw man. Funny straw man, but still straw man. Priest was nerfed already though, mostly because people already have to play around their removal, and having to play around Mind Control at the same time meant that Priest as a class was modifying the metagame too much just to marginalize it. Even at 10 mana they still have literally the best unconditional removal in the entire game.
Still isn't a case for Molten Giant. Stop trying to obfuscate the issue with this card by trying to toss others under the bus.
Lol. Well aren't you fancy with your big words. Look at the post I quoted champ.
He said: The match is boring, and thus this is justification for a change.
I said: If boring was a valid reason for instigating nerfs, then priests would be next up on the chopping block, because priest mirror match-ups are boring incarnate.
That isn't a strawman -- that's extrapolating his logic and applying it to show why his logic is faulty. Boring is not a criteria for nerfs. A card or class being OP is. The molten giant isn't OP.
EDIT* Strifecro, the #1 ranked legend player on NA is testing out a OTK warrior/MG deck on his stream right now. He wins some, and he loses some. Go get educated.
http://www.twitch.tv/strifecro
every time a card sees play it shouldn't just be banned. Some small amount of combo decks are healthy for tcgs anyway
Strifecro himself said he refuses to help people test the OTK molten deck because he hates it. Also boring is absolutely a criteria for changing a game that's still in beta. Boring is anti-fun, and Blizzard wants their game to be fun. Is this not game design 101?
When arguing for or against something, taking your interpretation of someone's argument and applying it to something else isn't a valid means of expressing your own opinions. You can oftentimes be accused of twisting what was said as a means of shoehorning it to fit your own agenda.
And judging by your previous posts here, your agenda is to defend Molten Giants despite the fact that the decks they tend to appear in will either play like a piece of shit for one or both parties involved or steal victory from the jaws of defeat. They're anti-skill and anti-fun in the vast majority of applications they find themselves in.
And yes, I'm incredibly fucking fancy with my big words.
That's exactly what a Strawman is, taking their "logic" and changing it to make it ridiculous.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Anyway, priest vs priest, though boring to watch, is actually pretty fun. You constantly have to consider what they have when playing.... well, anything. Most decks atm the thought process is just "Play as many minions as possible"
Want a cool signature like mine? Click Here!
You should go ask your community college for your money back because while you can clearly read and do research on what a straw-man is, your application of the principle is absolute fail. I did not distort, fabricate, or exaggerate his position. I took his position, applied it reasonably, and showed him why it was faulty.
Him: Matchup A is boring > boring is bad and should be changed > matchup A will be changed.
Me: Matchup B is also boring > if boring is bad and should be changed, > does that mean match up B should be changed ?
You: OMG STRAWMANNN !!!
His position was that boring is what Blizzard should actively try to change. I did not exaggerate this position or fabricate this position, I merely applied it. So if, HYPOTHETICALLY, someone said "all divine shield minions are OP". If i asked, "does that mean Silvermoon Guardian is OP?" That's not me straw-manning his position -- that's me applying his logic to test his position. That's all I'm doing here, applying and testing his claim.
So explain to me how I changed his logic to make it ridiculous. And try doing it without having a random internet link do the work for you.