⚙
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.
And 2 earth shocks for drakes. I can see the point of Black Knight, but it has no relevance for using clockworks or not.
And that 90% shaman... pls give me that deck.
The fact that you use the word "tech-choice" implies that you in fact did not understand the format. This deck will never ever see any other opponent than handlock, so there are no tech choices, it is just a deck against handlock that will never be played in a other way.
Anyway, if you do not think lifecoach is worth listening, then do not do it, but if you want to convince others come up with some useful argument.
If not for inspire Priest I would agree with you at once, but until I have tested that one out I will have to defer that judgment. The main reason being that Fencing Coach might actually be playable in Priest.
Ok, the clockwork thing aside.
His evaluation is totally logic and consistent in its premises. He evaluates a card with a very rough guess of its synergetic value and a quite accurate guess of its stand alone value in current existing decks. This is the reason why he totally missrated patrons, at the same time he only stated his evaluation to be rather accurate for >existing decks<, i.e. if the premises are valid (and there is no rise of a totally new archetype).
Given that: If the most successful non-aggro, non-new-archtype shaman evolving will not make use of the Tuskar or will be as bad as before, you are right.
Then there must be some serious flaw in the way he is translating his values into "mana" currency (do not bet on it!).
But do not think the shaman deck must be totally Tier 1, this is simply not what he meant. You must understand his wording, he is calling "good cards you >could< actually play" as "borderline" or "irrelevant" because their existence do not change much. He assigned Tuskar a small plus of value, that only means it will be played in the deck, it will make the deck better. It does not mean the deck will be super +++ strong in comparison to whatever comes up.
I shotgunned my head off after listening to ropecoach review 3 cards of TGT....he managed to figure out a way to rope a card review.
you have any arguments for why the card isnt as good as many think it is? (superlatives in caps lock dont count)
It is indiscussable that Tuskar Totem is pure value. It's just average-very-good. That is why it is rated high. Totem Golem is one turn earlier Spider Tank, that instead penalizes the next turn. It's not -that- good.
I think it's definitely true that a lot of the pros are just regular dudes who have met the relatively low skill cap required to pilot a net deck to success if played long enough, day after day, which they certainly do. There are many better players than them that we do not consider pros, simply because they don't stream. These guys are more celebrities than anything else.
By far the greatest skill in Hearthstone is deck building, and notably few pros have successful decks to their name.
I'm not sure if this applies to Lifecoach, but my point is that as many of the more down to earth pros have said, they are often not better than the average player, they have just learnt to control their tilt and play vast numbers of games. So many of them are not the kinds of people who would really offer much insight into card strength in new archetypes.
My personal favorite for card reviews is Kibler. Not just because he's mature enough not to get views through pandering to a usually racist/homophobic audience of twitch troll and mature enough to go by his real name rather than a dorky int3rnetz alias, but because probably through his long experience in Magic he is able to see the potential for new archetypes better than a lot of HS pros who have only had ~2 years of experience in CCGs.
If Dragon Mage takes off after TGT then you can be sure that Kibler is largely responsible for it, and by extension the success fo the players who netdeck it. If Lifecoach takes Patron Warrior to legend this season for the countless time, you can be sure that a couple thousand other people did exactly the same and it doesn't really mean shit that he happened to do it while a bunch of people watched him on stream.
I haven't read all the comments so I'm sorry if people have allready said this before in the thread.
1. No one expected Dr. Boom to be that great when he got annonced.
2. If the meta slows down, that in itself will give the priest a buff.
3. Did anyone predict patron to be a good card when it got annonced.
4 I'm not not sure that Wrynn will be that great, I mean how many minions in control warrior deck would you like to play
without battlecry ?
Made my day. So much lolz.
Neither of them are greatest of deckbuilders. Trump will take his attempt on making crap decks after TGT release before netdecking. Lifecoach will just wait until good decks are out.
I hate RNG
What I usually notice when I watch reviews by pro-players is that they almost always analyze the cards using the current existing decks. They try to fit those cards in the existing decks but usually they never think about the new decks that the whole expansion can create. But I don't blame them because you can't really know what decks will become a thing and how the meta will shift. So when a pro-player says some card sucks it usually just means it sucks in the current decks/meta.
I didn't have a signature so Flux added one for me.
Let's give it a month+ or so, then we can all laugh at how wrong most people were.
Humans are notoriously bad at predicting stuff.
This is actually true, but they do not claim to be. And who is? I think deck building is so complex and metagame dependant that at some a certain skill level it comes down to pure luck. At least i do not know any person that has built >two< new archetypes that both become top tier.
Kolento, StrifeCro are good deckbuilders. They are always tinkering with new ideas. Those might not be top tier decks, but they are good enough to do well in legend rank. StrifeCro often plays his grinder mage, Kolento plays a lot of miracle priest in his stream nowadays. As far as I know Kolento built the notorious miracle rogue(I might be wrong).
I hate RNG
Are you for real? Miracle Priest is not top tier. Are you claiming Reynad has invented Zoo? when did this happen? the HS community has been developing Zoo as a common effort for ages so that no one can take full credit for it, but if Reynad was the first to come up with it I'd like to know when and what manner of Zoo.
Nobody can discuss the fact that there were so many good ideas that Blizzard fucked up in this expansion.
Inspire has not enough cards and not enough actually good effects to make a new deck out of this. We'll need to wait next expansion, I guess, exactly like we got crappy dragons with BRM and very good ones this time.
Joust seems lackluster ... this was a nice idea but I you lose on draw you need to have cards that have value even without winning the joust, and there are not enough cards like that (maybe 2 or 3).
So many wasted opportunities ... especially for Priest and Rogue. There were good ideas but the absolutely horrendous stats make those cards impossible to play.
Blizzard tries to push archetypes ... but that will fail :
* Beast druid : not enough good beasts to make it viable
* Control Hunter : good cards this time, way to go, but like Beast druid I think we'll need to wait another expansion for it to work
* Taunt Warrior : good idea lore-wise but Control and Patron will still prevail
* Inspire Mage : lol, that won't work
* Pirate Rogue : why Blizzard, why ??
* Discard Warlock : this is so bad
* Totem Shaman : actually the only one with a nice chance to work. I guess maybe it would be better with more totems ...
In the end, like in every expansion/adventure, we will get 80% of bad cards, 15% of decent cards and 5% of good cards (maybe one or two broken but too early to tell). That's not different from Naxx, BRM or GvG. The only difference is that the bad cards are absolutely terrible, while the GvG bad cards were just bad.
On the other hand I really dislike this attempt for force archetypes.
I can grind to legend rank 3500 with my Dragon Druid, that does not make it a top tier deck or me a good deckbuilder.
Senfglas was rank 1 on both NA and Europe with the first patron warrior for a week or so? After that it changed the meta game. That is what im talking about.
I can only speak to Trump's review since I haven't watched Lifecoach's.
For the most part, I agree with Trump's reviews, I think Inspire is too slow and they're given poor stats for their cost so if you never get Inspire off, they're terrible cards. My problem with his logic is that he always seems to assume the card is being played on an empty board. Obviously that happens a good chunk of the time and that's just not the case as much as he brings up.
He's also too obsessed with the concept of 'value'(obviously), and a ton of times he's right, but just as an example off the top of my head, saying you need to play at least four minons for the new Shaman Legendary to be "worth it", is crazy. You can easily win the game based off one or two minions being that much more powerful. What if you're playing a 3 cost minion and it's able to trade up? That's value too and in the flow of a game can easily bring you victory. And comparing it to Sword of Justice is just bad, the cards are nothing alike, the type of deck you'd play it in is nothing alike. He also assumes everything is being played on curve, and I don't blame him because assuming you're playing off curve brings in way too many hypotheticals, but let's face it, cards aren't played on curve a lot of the time. Also, when comparing cards, "this card is better than that", and he may be right, but in a lot of cases you may just run both because they're both good cards, even if one is better than the other.
So I dunno, Trump's a smart guy, he's usually right, and it's extremely hard to review in a vacuum with no experience playing said cards, and I agree with him for the most part on these cards, but you have to take it with a grain of salt. He's extremely logical in a game that has a lot of RNG and random elements that you can't plan for.
I agree on the Shaman Legendary being not so great. You need to play a very slow shaman deck for it to be worth it, that means you will lose early board. A 4/4 on turn 6 isn't threatening at all. The value comes at the cost of terrible tempo loss.
Don't get me wrong, it's a decent card, but it's not the ridiculously overpowered card most people thinking it is.
I hate RNG
I think it's somewhere in the middle. A 4/4 on 6 isn't threatening, that's kind of the point because every minion you play now is going to be that much better. If it had great stats on top of an effect like that it'd be a must play card for every Shaman deck. Assuming the game slows down a bit, the game isn't going to be over turn 6 and all your plays turn 7 on are that much stronger.
My ultimate point though isn't about how good or bad the card is, it's that Trump is coming from a very biased and precise point of view. That doesn't mean he's wrong, the card can be completely mediocre or terrible, but the "you need to play four minions to get real value out of it" is kind of irrelevant. There's a lot of "poor value cards" that can win games, easily. Obviously you want as much value as possible, but just because "On an empty board, on curve, you need to play four minions, or this card is bad." Okay, what if you do play four minions? What if you play six? Is it great then? The kind of Shaman deck that would play this has that crazy healing spell. He loves the new minion that heals 4, he loves Antique Healbot, why do we just assume that you're not going to be able to play all those minions? Or even if you get one, like I said, and you're able to trade up and clear a Taunt or remove a pesky minion or whatever scenario you want to come up with, and now you win the game because of it?
The game is not played with an empty board and an assumption that your minions will be killed the second they hit the board, and that's how Trump critiques every card. It happens, of course, but it also doesn't happen, a lot. Like I've said, he's right more often than not, I'm a big follower of Value Town, but you have to realize the lens he's looking at these cards through.