The issue isn't face hunter, the issue is that face hunter is really so above and beyond other aggro variants that it limits player choice.
Zoo is midrange guys. It doesn't start to establish a truly threatening and hard to remove board until 4 and beyond. It's best card is 5 mana (doomguard). Mech mage is also midrange imo, it runs antonidas and boom, and it's true deal sealers come out on turn 4 when they can blastmage a board or drop shredders.
Can you think of another aggro variant that is as effective as face hunter? When one class dominates an archetype so completely, I can see why its frustrating.
I would insist that Face Hunter isn't an aggro deck, it's a burn deck (which I've often heard called combo - basically you're relying on a combination of cards to do 3 or more damage per card to win).
Kinda unfortunate that we only have one right now, but the seeds are there for shaman and mage burn decks.
The common answer is that fast decks keep control honest. And it's true. And it's also fine for control decks to spend their early turns trading off their anti-aggro cards. There's a balance to be had, and there's no "right" way to play the game except using the cards and classes in it to win.
Face hunter is what everyone hates about hearthstone all rolled into one deck.
- No blocking allowed thank to owl - No interaction of minions ever - No back and forth, just face-racing - Full-on topdeck reliance for both players - Tons of RNG thanks to huffer and traps - impossible to come back against
The designers have nerfed this deck 3 times already, as just a sad attempt at patching this failed class. Sadly someone at the office didn't get the memo because they gave the green light to quickshot and ..core.. rager... that piece of garbage.
Guys, people won't play your garbage King of Beasts and Gazrillahs until you change the hero power.
Face hunter is what everyone hates about hearthstone all rolled into one deck.
- No blocking allowed thank to owl - No interaction of minions ever - No back and forth, just face-racing - Full-on topdeck reliance for both players - Tons of RNG thanks to huffer and traps - impossible to come back against
The designers have nerfed this deck 3 times already, as just a sad attempt at patching this failed class. Sadly someone at the office didn't get the memo because they gave the green light to quickshot and ..core.. rager... that piece of garbage.
Guys, people won't play your garbage King of Beasts and Gazrillahs until you change the hero power.
To be fair, the bow and buzzard nerfs weren't really hits to face hunter. They were more meant to corral the insane amount of value the midrange hunter decks could get. Those nerfs more or less paved the way for the face hunter deck you see now, as before midrange was pretty much always going to be the superior choice and you could still kill people fast. The all rush deck's popularity is relatively recent. Even the old Undertaker variation played more like zoo than the current version, since with giant Undertakers and a ton of value deathrattles it could afford to not just go face and pray in the games where that was necessary.
Are the daily "nerf hunter" threads healthy for Hearthstone? (A complain post)
No they are not, because all they do is making people repeat the same stupid excuses for their own shortcommings over and over and over again!!! Yes, believe it or not, Face Hunter, while being powerful, is also one of the decks that is the most easily counterable in the whole f... game: If it really bugs you that much loosing against that deck: just play a Control Warrior (to the op, there you can also put aaaaallll your beloved legendaries in) or freeze mage or control priest or a midrangy demonlock...Face Hunter is not OP, right now it is powerful, even very powerful, but easy to handle and in so far a check on control decks that would get very greedy without the dreaded Face Hunter!
And now to the unhealthiness: Face Hunter is the excuse of every mediocre player out there - "I could easily go Legend but I don't want to play facehunter, cos' you now like, I am a totally cooool control player" ... Bullshit, you very probably could not, FaceHunter is a deck that can go Legend but like every hearthstone deck, at a higher level, you have to master it well and additionally, Face Hunter is always a meta game call, if they get too popular (which they are NOT on higher ranks) they usually get teched out of the meta pretty hard ...! All this stupid whining keeps people from really focusing on the game and improving and, more importantly, it makes the community look like a bunch of crybabies!
Is Control Warrior Healthy for Hearthstone? (not a complain post)
Greetings, traveler. The title says it all.
As someone who has been playing since July of 2014, I've played my fill of ranked and arena, with a variety of different classes and styles for each class. I've played several incarnations of the popular Warrior decks throughout my time. One of those is Control Warrior. I've AlexstraszaGrommash Hellscreamed my way through at least 30 wins. From my observation, the deck does not care to put out a board for me to interact with. Being on either side, this is obvious. But is this how Hearthstone was meant to be played? Freeze Mage players often advertise that deck as board control. It is slow but still has board interaction. The Handlock often put down stuff for trades and uses removal on annoying minions. But the current Warrior deck lacks any decisions.
You could argue that you must save your Alexstrasza, or wait to use damage spells, but ultimately everything is going to the face. You could argue Midrange Warriors are a thing, but I see that at all these days. You could argue that control is a part of every card game, but don't you think a type like this is excessive?
I'll be honest, I hate Warriors at the moment. It seems they are at their worst style ever. They make me salty when I lose at TURN 34. So I do have biases towards the deck. When my game ends way after I have played all of my best cards or legendaries I have worked for, but I still can't win, then why bother grinding when I can just throw together Wallet Warrior and hit legend?
Everyone hates Face Hunter? Actually I like it. Turn 1 Leper Gnome makes me a happy pand, Claude the artwork and sound Is so ffunny. Even when I play Shaman or Paladin. Maybe that experience Is different when you play against it 9/10. but then just tech against it. And in Casual? Just concede?
The only huge and the only fixable problem for Hunter is Mad Scientist. That card has been blatantly overpowered since it was released, and bringing it in line with the other cards in the game would do a lot towards making Hunter and Mech Mage enjoyable opponents.
All people how complain about decks/cards fall into two groups ... Those who don't have said deck/cards, and those who don't know how to play said decks/cards !!!!! It's that simple !!!!!
Well I have the cards to make just about any deck I want, and when I'm annoyed I play face hunter for a few games, and I always win while saying "my apologies" which I genuinely mean because doing 30+ damage by turn 4 or 5 is just broken weather you're the one taking advantage of it or not.
The 3 decks I am using right now though seem to do fairly well against hunter, but I am still tweaking them every few games, they are Demonlock, the Grim Patron Warrior and Millrogue which until yesterday I had 5 total ranked wins with rogue, so i'm a bit of a rogue noob :)
Are the daily "nerf hunter" threads healthy for Hearthstone? (A complain post)
No they are not, because all they do is making people repeat the same stupid excuses for their own shortcommings over and over and over again!!! Yes, believe it or not, Face Hunter, while being powerful, is also one of the decks that is the most easily counterable in the whole f... game: If it really bugs you that much loosing against that deck: just play a Control Warrior (to the op, there you can also put aaaaallll your beloved legendaries in) or freeze mage or control priest or a midrangy demonlock...Face Hunter is not OP, right now it is powerful, even very powerful, but easy to handle and in so far a check on control decks that would get very greedy without the dreaded Face Hunter!
And now to the unhealthiness: Face Hunter is the excuse of every mediocre player out there - "I could easily go Legend but I don't want to play facehunter, cos' you now like, I am a totally cooool control player" ... Bullshit, you very probably could not, FaceHunter is a deck that can go Legend but like every hearthstone deck, at a higher level, you have to master it well and additionally, Face Hunter is always a meta game call, if they get too popular (which they are NOT on higher ranks) they usually get teched out of the meta pretty hard ...! All this stupid whining keeps people from really focusing on the game and improving and, more importantly, it makes the community look like a bunch of crybabies!
QFT +1
Face Hunter seems to be a talking point and an excuse more than it is a real deck.
Every time I have seen a control-inclined streamer like Trump or Amaz pick up the "stock" Face Hunter, they just play out whatever uses all their mana, then attack face with everything. And they also meet up against decks seemingly tweaked toward aggro and go on big 0-X losing streaks (rank 5 and up). Meanwhile as they play other decks in those ranks, once in a while they will encounter a Face Hunter themselves, sometimes lose, mostly win. My experience is pretty much the same. I just mentioned streamers because anyone can watch the VOD's and see for themselves.
Also, can we cut it out with the "Turn 4" crap? Post a screenie or it did NOT happen. The only Turn 4 win that I know of is Shaman with 2x Windfury Tornado into Flametongue/Rockbiter. I have never gotten a Turn 4 win as Hunter, nor had one against me. If someone could even write up a scenario where it's possible with the stock Face Hunter deck, I'd be surprised. And now given that a Turn 4 kill is not possible, you should just be able to stabilize whenever you draw Healbot. This Face Hunter dominance is a myth and a canard.
Well face hunter is face hunter is good for ladder yes dose it really have 90% win rate no,like zoolock games are fast paced win or lose it will end fast,so the time it takes a control warrior to play one game a face hunter will play 3 counting that he wins 2 out of 3 games he will be faster to get to legend then most midrange/control decks thus the popularity is it really brain dead NO!!! can it be play'd by brain dead people ofc like any other deck but only good players will hit legend with it like any other deck just a bit faster,so is it healthy for the game well lock at it this way low numbers of aggro more control deck's slower meta grind to legend takes one month...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those skilled at making the enemy move do so by creating a situation to which he must conform; they entice him with something he is certain to take, and with lures of ostensible profit they await him in strength.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Mathematically and theoretically it is easily possible. In practice and real life scenario not likely. No interaction from opponent through turn 4 so maybe handlock that didn't have any answers?
W/ coin
Turn 1- Leper gnome, Leper gnome (or abusive sergeant) -0 30 life left
Turn 2- Glaivekooza -7 23 life left
Turn 3- Animal Compantion (4/2 charge) -11 12 life left
Turn 4- Animal Companion (4/2 charge or 2/4 +1/+1) -13 or -12 0 life left
On the play
Turn 1- LN -0 30 life left
Turn 2- AS, AS -6 24 Life left
Turn 3- AC (4/2 charge) -10 14 life left
Turn 4- AC (+1/+1 or 4/2) -14 0 life left
And their are a few variances but it is possible if you mulled and got a big drop hand where you can't interact or were playing handlock and didn't have your board interaction cards. Possible but not practical.
To explain, that's based on one of the legendary aggro decks: murloc. A murloc deck with a good drop (with warleader at hand) can kill you by turn 4. That's the start of the 'aggro decks killing you by turn 4'. Zoo, while it didn't KILL by turn 4, it was the point when it would seal the game with not even an AOE solution, so you basically just conceded.
Funny thing is, we don't really have such things anymore. Even hunter goes through a good number of turns before it kills you due to it's tempo feel (before someone says.. it's an aggro deck, just that it took the feel of Tempo hunter from post-UTH nerf to make it work).
Good post overall, just wante dto explain where 'turn 4' came from.
Are the daily "nerf hunter" threads healthy for Hearthstone? (A complain post)
No they are not, because all they do is making people repeat the same stupid excuses for their own shortcommings over and over and over again!!!
Yeah that's why they nerfed the class 3 times in one year, right? Just completely out of the blue they figured out that everyone hated to play against 4 mana buzzard unleash. Or maybe it was the repeated wave of complaints on their forum. hmmm
I've called every single nerf before they did it and every single time there's a dude like you with your "omg guyz jusss play around it!!1 lol" mentality.
I still can't believe the number of people who were defending buzzard unleash combo when it only cost 4 mana or the geniuses saying you should just play turn 2 owl to counter undertaker.
Such a typical "if you don't like it, leave it" mentality. Screw improving anything, if you hate any part of something, throw it away or else pretend like you love it weee. What's that? Don't like onions in your hamburger? Woah there crybaby, don't ask for no onions in your hamburgers, just never eat any hamburgers again! Or better yeah, just eat nothing but onions so you learn to man up and accept the taste of onions. That's the logical way to deal with things in life!
Btw I don't think there's anything to nerf in the current hunter. I just think it's a horrible deck for the game. I don't even think it's particularly good or hard to beat. It's just boring and not something they should be enabling as it basically exploits all the flaws in hearthstone.
A better kind of deck to promote is midrange paladin / priest. They sort of did that, although quartermaster is sort of over the top good in my opinion.
Here's some tiers for you:
Non-scummy decks: Priest, demonlock, paladin, grinder mage, tempo mage, midrange shaman Semi-scummy decks: Mill rogue, control warrior, combo druid, mech zoo, handlock, zoo total scumbag decks: Freeze mage, oil rogue, face hunter, miracle rogue
Any time a deck's main way to play is just to ignore everything that's happening and burst you down, there's a problem. Blizzard have shown that they aggre by repeatedly nerfing burst-enabling cards. Since release, that's all they've nerfed. ( Gadgetzan, leeroy, unleash, buzzard, undertaker ). All of these cards promoted a "ignore game, go face" strategy.
For those who don't remember buzzard unleash deck, here's what it did: Go face. Then go face. Then when you're out of cards and behind on board, play buzzard unleash. Draw 4-5 cards. Kill board. Resume going face.
As someone who has been playing since July of 2014, I've played my fill of ranked and arena, with a variety of different classes and styles for each class. I've played several incarnations of the popular Hunter decks throughout my time. One of those is Face Hunter. I've kill commanded my way through at least 30 wins. From my observation, the deck does not care to interact with the oppositions board. Being on either side, this is obvious. But is this how Hearthstone was meant to be played? Zoo players often advertise that deck as board control. It is aggressive but still has board interaction. The Mech Mage often trades and uses removal on annoying minions. But the current Hunter deck lacks any decisions.
You could argue that you must save your Unleash, or wait to use damage spells, but ultimately everything is going to the face. You could argue Midrange Hunters are a thing, but I see that at all these days. You could argue that aggro is a part of every card game, but don't you think a type like this is excessive?
I'll be honest, I hate Hunters at the moment. It seems they are at their worst style ever. They make me salty when I lose at TURN 4. So I do have biases towards the deck. When my game ends at before I can even play some of my best cards or legendaries I have worked for then why bother grinding when I can just throw together Face Hunter and hit legend?
Yes, Face Hunter is very healthy. Every TCG, or I guess in this game CCG, styled game should have cards that favor highly aggressive strategies as well as very controlling strategies. I'm not sure how many of you guys are magic players, but attend a few FNM's and you will start to loath control decks (or maybe you'll be evil and like em). From my time as an amateur Magic player over a couple years during alara-zendikar-scars I went from only winning one game if I was lucky at events, to taking 1st 17 times in a row. What I learned on my journey is that in a healthy card game meta you really need a balance of all strategies.
If there were no face decks that means the cards that people would normally tech or even play standard with the assumption that aggression might be an present in an opponent's decks would not be played. It is having these anti aggro cards that are "dead" against other control decks that really creates the meta for what it is. Anyone can netdeck and grab a deck, in fact the most card games generally have such statistically advantageous strategies that not netdecking for at minimum a base set of important cards is foolish for any serious player. What really brings out the skill in a player are those few cards that you do different. IE two almos identical Oil Rogues, one runs loatheb and gallywix, the other runs an extra healbot and van cleef. Depending on the many variables they face, they will have much different win ratios over a long period of time. THIS is what it means to be good. Not doing good or getting lucky in one game, rather being consistent in the long haul. If face hunter was nerfed to oblivion, the meta would slow down then the next fastest viable deck would then become the new "cancer". You want fast decks, just be happy face hunter isn't as consistent as some Magic decks that plan for turn 3-4 wins at twice the consistency.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The issue isn't face hunter, the issue is that face hunter is really so above and beyond other aggro variants that it limits player choice.
Zoo is midrange guys. It doesn't start to establish a truly threatening and hard to remove board until 4 and beyond. It's best card is 5 mana (doomguard). Mech mage is also midrange imo, it runs antonidas and boom, and it's true deal sealers come out on turn 4 when they can blastmage a board or drop shredders.
Can you think of another aggro variant that is as effective as face hunter? When one class dominates an archetype so completely, I can see why its frustrating.
I would insist that Face Hunter isn't an aggro deck, it's a burn deck (which I've often heard called combo - basically you're relying on a combination of cards to do 3 or more damage per card to win).
Kinda unfortunate that we only have one right now, but the seeds are there for shaman and mage burn decks.
The common answer is that fast decks keep control honest. And it's true. And it's also fine for control decks to spend their early turns trading off their anti-aggro cards. There's a balance to be had, and there's no "right" way to play the game except using the cards and classes in it to win.
It does spoil it yes
People say its easy win and easy legendary are just trolling, if they meant it they should prove it
Face hunter is what everyone hates about hearthstone all rolled into one deck.
- No blocking allowed thank to owl
- No interaction of minions ever
- No back and forth, just face-racing
- Full-on topdeck reliance for both players
- Tons of RNG thanks to huffer and traps
- impossible to come back against
The designers have nerfed this deck 3 times already, as just a sad attempt at patching this failed class. Sadly someone at the office didn't get the memo because they gave the green light to quickshot and ..core.. rager... that piece of garbage.
Guys, people won't play your garbage King of Beasts and Gazrillahs until you change the hero power.
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice - Sneak Review! http://www.thepoxbox.com/challenges.php?id=batmanvsuperman
To be fair, the bow and buzzard nerfs weren't really hits to face hunter. They were more meant to corral the insane amount of value the midrange hunter decks could get. Those nerfs more or less paved the way for the face hunter deck you see now, as before midrange was pretty much always going to be the superior choice and you could still kill people fast. The all rush deck's popularity is relatively recent. Even the old Undertaker variation played more like zoo than the current version, since with giant Undertakers and a ton of value deathrattles it could afford to not just go face and pray in the games where that was necessary.
Nothing doing, traveler.
Are the daily "nerf hunter" threads healthy for Hearthstone? (A complain post)
No they are not, because all they do is making people repeat the same stupid excuses for their own shortcommings over and over and over again!!! Yes, believe it or not, Face Hunter, while being powerful, is also one of the decks that is the most easily counterable in the whole f... game: If it really bugs you that much loosing against that deck: just play a Control Warrior (to the op, there you can also put aaaaallll your beloved legendaries in) or freeze mage or control priest or a midrangy demonlock...Face Hunter is not OP, right now it is powerful, even very powerful, but easy to handle and in so far a check on control decks that would get very greedy without the dreaded Face Hunter!
And now to the unhealthiness: Face Hunter is the excuse of every mediocre player out there - "I could easily go Legend but I don't want to play facehunter, cos' you now like, I am a totally cooool control player" ... Bullshit, you very probably could not, FaceHunter is a deck that can go Legend but like every hearthstone deck, at a higher level, you have to master it well and additionally, Face Hunter is always a meta game call, if they get too popular (which they are NOT on higher ranks) they usually get teched out of the meta pretty hard ...! All this stupid whining keeps people from really focusing on the game and improving and, more importantly, it makes the community look like a bunch of crybabies!
Fabisco's post #55 hits face far harder than any face hunter ever did. Well said.
--------------------------------- quote ---------------------------------
Is Control Warrior Healthy for Hearthstone? (not a complain post)
Greetings, traveler. The title says it all.
As someone who has been playing since July of 2014, I've played my fill of ranked and arena, with a variety of different classes and styles for each class. I've played several incarnations of the popular Warrior decks throughout my time. One of those is Control Warrior. I've Alexstrasza Grommash Hellscreamed my way through at least 30 wins. From my observation, the deck does not care to put out a board for me to interact with. Being on either side, this is obvious. But is this how Hearthstone was meant to be played? Freeze Mage players often advertise that deck as board control. It is slow but still has board interaction. The Handlock often put down stuff for trades and uses removal on annoying minions. But the current Warrior deck lacks any decisions.
You could argue that you must save your Alexstrasza, or wait to use damage spells, but ultimately everything is going to the face. You could argue Midrange Warriors are a thing, but I see that at all these days. You could argue that control is a part of every card game, but don't you think a type like this is excessive?
I'll be honest, I hate Warriors at the moment. It seems they are at their worst style ever. They make me salty when I lose at TURN 34. So I do have biases towards the deck. When my game ends way after I have played all of my best cards or legendaries I have worked for, but I still can't win, then why bother grinding when I can just throw together Wallet Warrior and hit legend?
--------------------------------- quote ---------------------------------
I dedicate this to you, good sir.
"Are you not entertained?! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!"
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity." - Maximus Decimus Meridius
Everyone hates Face Hunter? Actually I like it. Turn 1 Leper Gnome makes me a happy pand, Claude the artwork and sound Is so ffunny. Even when I play Shaman or Paladin. Maybe that experience Is different when you play against it 9/10. but then just tech against it. And in Casual? Just concede?
The only huge and the only fixable problem for Hunter is Mad Scientist. That card has been blatantly overpowered since it was released, and bringing it in line with the other cards in the game would do a lot towards making Hunter and Mech Mage enjoyable opponents.
Thank you ;)
Well I have the cards to make just about any deck I want, and when I'm annoyed I play face hunter for a few games, and I always win while saying "my apologies" which I genuinely mean because doing 30+ damage by turn 4 or 5 is just broken weather you're the one taking advantage of it or not.
The 3 decks I am using right now though seem to do fairly well against hunter, but I am still tweaking them every few games, they are Demonlock, the Grim Patron Warrior and Millrogue which until yesterday I had 5 total ranked wins with rogue, so i'm a bit of a rogue noob :)
Play control warrior, like 80% winrate against face hunter.
I AM THE ESSENCE OF MAGIC Print/T-Shirt
QFT +1
Face Hunter seems to be a talking point and an excuse more than it is a real deck.
Every time I have seen a control-inclined streamer like Trump or Amaz pick up the "stock" Face Hunter, they just play out whatever uses all their mana, then attack face with everything. And they also meet up against decks seemingly tweaked toward aggro and go on big 0-X losing streaks (rank 5 and up). Meanwhile as they play other decks in those ranks, once in a while they will encounter a Face Hunter themselves, sometimes lose, mostly win. My experience is pretty much the same. I just mentioned streamers because anyone can watch the VOD's and see for themselves.
Also, can we cut it out with the "Turn 4" crap? Post a screenie or it did NOT happen. The only Turn 4 win that I know of is Shaman with 2x Windfury Tornado into Flametongue/Rockbiter. I have never gotten a Turn 4 win as Hunter, nor had one against me. If someone could even write up a scenario where it's possible with the stock Face Hunter deck, I'd be surprised. And now given that a Turn 4 kill is not possible, you should just be able to stabilize whenever you draw Healbot. This Face Hunter dominance is a myth and a canard.
Well face hunter is face hunter is good for ladder yes dose it really have 90% win rate no,like zoolock games are fast paced win or lose it will end fast,so the time it takes a control warrior to play one game a face hunter will play 3 counting that he wins 2 out of 3 games he will be faster to get to legend then most midrange/control decks thus the popularity is it really brain dead NO!!! can it be play'd by brain dead people ofc like any other deck but only good players will hit legend with it like any other deck just a bit faster,so is it healthy for the game well lock at it this way low numbers of aggro more control deck's slower meta grind to legend takes one month...
“Those skilled at making the enemy move do so by creating a situation to which he must conform; they entice him with something he is certain to take, and with lures of ostensible profit they await him in strength.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Mathematically and theoretically it is easily possible. In practice and real life scenario not likely. No interaction from opponent through turn 4 so maybe handlock that didn't have any answers?
W/ coin
Turn 1- Leper gnome, Leper gnome (or abusive sergeant) -0 30 life left
Turn 2- Glaivekooza -7 23 life left
Turn 3- Animal Compantion (4/2 charge) -11 12 life left
Turn 4- Animal Companion (4/2 charge or 2/4 +1/+1) -13 or -12 0 life left
On the play
Turn 1- LN -0 30 life left
Turn 2- AS, AS -6 24 Life left
Turn 3- AC (4/2 charge) -10 14 life left
Turn 4- AC (+1/+1 or 4/2) -14 0 life left
And their are a few variances but it is possible if you mulled and got a big drop hand where you can't interact or were playing handlock and didn't have your board interaction cards. Possible but not practical.
To explain, that's based on one of the legendary aggro decks: murloc. A murloc deck with a good drop (with warleader at hand) can kill you by turn 4. That's the start of the 'aggro decks killing you by turn 4'. Zoo, while it didn't KILL by turn 4, it was the point when it would seal the game with not even an AOE solution, so you basically just conceded.
Funny thing is, we don't really have such things anymore. Even hunter goes through a good number of turns before it kills you due to it's tempo feel (before someone says.. it's an aggro deck, just that it took the feel of Tempo hunter from post-UTH nerf to make it work).
Good post overall, just wante dto explain where 'turn 4' came from.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Yeah that's why they nerfed the class 3 times in one year, right?
Just completely out of the blue they figured out that everyone hated to play against 4 mana buzzard unleash. Or maybe it was the repeated wave of complaints on their forum. hmmm
I've called every single nerf before they did it and every single time there's a dude like you with your "omg guyz jusss play around it!!1 lol" mentality.
I still can't believe the number of people who were defending buzzard unleash combo when it only cost 4 mana or the geniuses saying you should just play turn 2 owl to counter undertaker.
Such a typical "if you don't like it, leave it" mentality. Screw improving anything, if you hate any part of something, throw it away or else pretend like you love it weee.
What's that? Don't like onions in your hamburger? Woah there crybaby, don't ask for no onions in your hamburgers, just never eat any hamburgers again! Or better yeah, just eat nothing but onions so you learn to man up and accept the taste of onions.
That's the logical way to deal with things in life!
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice - Sneak Review! http://www.thepoxbox.com/challenges.php?id=batmanvsuperman
Btw I don't think there's anything to nerf in the current hunter.
I just think it's a horrible deck for the game. I don't even think it's particularly good or hard to beat. It's just boring and not something they should be enabling as it basically exploits all the flaws in hearthstone.
A better kind of deck to promote is midrange paladin / priest. They sort of did that, although quartermaster is sort of over the top good in my opinion.
Here's some tiers for you:
Non-scummy decks: Priest, demonlock, paladin, grinder mage, tempo mage, midrange shaman
Semi-scummy decks: Mill rogue, control warrior, combo druid, mech zoo, handlock, zoo
total scumbag decks: Freeze mage, oil rogue, face hunter, miracle rogue
Any time a deck's main way to play is just to ignore everything that's happening and burst you down, there's a problem. Blizzard have shown that they aggre by repeatedly nerfing burst-enabling cards. Since release, that's all they've nerfed. ( Gadgetzan, leeroy, unleash, buzzard, undertaker ). All of these cards promoted a "ignore game, go face" strategy.
For those who don't remember buzzard unleash deck, here's what it did: Go face. Then go face. Then when you're out of cards and behind on board, play buzzard unleash. Draw 4-5 cards. Kill board. Resume going face.
Fun deck that way.
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice - Sneak Review! http://www.thepoxbox.com/challenges.php?id=batmanvsuperman
Yes, Face Hunter is very healthy. Every TCG, or I guess in this game CCG, styled game should have cards that favor highly aggressive strategies as well as very controlling strategies. I'm not sure how many of you guys are magic players, but attend a few FNM's and you will start to loath control decks (or maybe you'll be evil and like em). From my time as an amateur Magic player over a couple years during alara-zendikar-scars I went from only winning one game if I was lucky at events, to taking 1st 17 times in a row. What I learned on my journey is that in a healthy card game meta you really need a balance of all strategies.
If there were no face decks that means the cards that people would normally tech or even play standard with the assumption that aggression might be an present in an opponent's decks would not be played. It is having these anti aggro cards that are "dead" against other control decks that really creates the meta for what it is. Anyone can netdeck and grab a deck, in fact the most card games generally have such statistically advantageous strategies that not netdecking for at minimum a base set of important cards is foolish for any serious player. What really brings out the skill in a player are those few cards that you do different. IE two almos identical Oil Rogues, one runs loatheb and gallywix, the other runs an extra healbot and van cleef. Depending on the many variables they face, they will have much different win ratios over a long period of time. THIS is what it means to be good. Not doing good or getting lucky in one game, rather being consistent in the long haul. If face hunter was nerfed to oblivion, the meta would slow down then the next fastest viable deck would then become the new "cancer". You want fast decks, just be happy face hunter isn't as consistent as some Magic decks that plan for turn 3-4 wins at twice the consistency.