The definition people are using is wrong. There is a reason things have definitions. Linguini is like spaghetti, but it’s incorrect to call linguini spaghetti. Mana cheating has been a concept in TCGs before hearthstone ever existed. It is playing a card for little or no cost before you could pay for it. It’s playing SotF for free six turns early. It’s using elvish piper to play an eldrazi turn 5.
As for GA, 14 mana (best case scenario) for 7 is extremely valuable and a bit overpowered. It’s not mana cheating. Playing it for free on turn 4-5 is. Also, you know what really screws up that strategy? Making them draw one cost beasts. Now if only there was a card that would put two 1/1 beasts in the opponent’s deck...
By that definition any card played using innervate/lightning bloom was mana cheated, doesnt have to cost 0.. Commencement pays 7 mana to play a more expensive minion + taunt/DS + 01 card draw, it only discounts around 6 mana but its certainly mana cheating. Its not something cut and dry, theres room for interpretation here I think.
I dont think anyone would be complaining about GA if Albatross was a good tech option bro, just saying LOL
It is a good tech option: just not one people are willing to use. Because people would rather demand Blizzard "fix it" (which just means, "make my favorite deck better") then do the hard work of fixing their own decks. I just played a variant of this Druid deck and got utterly wrecked by a control Priest. The meta adjusts: people just need to give it time.
People's issue is less that a deck cannot be beaten, its a deck that can't be beaten with what they WANT to play with. So many people just want the game to cater them as an individual.
Weird because they seem to be the same people who cry about early streaming because it 'ruins the experimenting phase', which is exactly what this is. Some busted things pop out and people then start to counter them. Things are going to seem way, way over powered when you have no idea what to expect or play around. Once those beasts start coming down regularly people will start to tech against it to counter it. If a couple of weeks go by and there's no counter in sight then that's when nerfs should be considered.
I seem to recall bomb warrior starting off by smashing so many things and then fairly quickly fading away. I coukd be wrong but I can't really be bothered to really go through the examples because these people don't want to be reasoned with, they just want to have their cry and be validated by Internet strangers.
Agreed. The deck IS beatable, but not by every deck. That's always been the case in HS.
The definition people are using is wrong. There is a reason things have definitions. Linguini is like spaghetti, but it’s incorrect to call linguini spaghetti. Mana cheating has been a concept in TCGs before hearthstone ever existed. It is playing a card for little or no cost before you could pay for it. It’s playing SotF for free six turns early. It’s using elvish piper to play an eldrazi turn 5.
As for GA, 14 mana (best case scenario) for 7 is extremely valuable and a bit overpowered. It’s not mana cheating. Playing it for free on turn 4-5 is. Also, you know what really screws up that strategy? Making them draw one cost beasts. Now if only there was a card that would put two 1/1 beasts in the opponent’s deck...
Stop, you're making sense. Didn't you know that this is a "Boo hoo, I'm losing to a deck I don't like. Nerf it!" thread?
Seems more like a 'a game I care about is being turned into a mess that only people who lick windows and eat crayons can enjoy' thread to me.
Or, an "I don't know how to play a deck with an actual positive win rate against druid because I keep sticking my tongue into the electrical outlet" type thread.
If you want to keep exchanging insults, trust me, I'm better at it than you. But the simple fact is there are ways of improving your win rate against druid, but people are too lazy to use them. Instead they're misusing the term "mana cheating," misrepresenting how often druid gets the insane power turn everyone knows exists, and whining for a nerf WAY before it's clear it's even needed. At some point, when the meta settles down or when Blizzard is actually able to confirm the nature of the problem, a nerf might be needed. But as of now, it's just a cry-baby rant.
The definition people are using is wrong. There is a reason things have definitions. Linguini is like spaghetti, but it’s incorrect to call linguini spaghetti. Mana cheating has been a concept in TCGs before hearthstone ever existed. It is playing a card for little or no cost before you could pay for it. It’s playing SotF for free six turns early. It’s using elvish piper to play an eldrazi turn 5.
As for GA, 14 mana (best case scenario) for 7 is extremely valuable and a bit overpowered. It’s not mana cheating. Playing it for free on turn 4-5 is. Also, you know what really screws up that strategy? Making them draw one cost beasts. Now if only there was a card that would put two 1/1 beasts in the opponent’s deck...
Stop, you're making sense. Didn't you know that this is a "Boo hoo, I'm losing to a deck I don't like. Nerf it!" thread?
The problem is not the mana cheating, its the lack of SETUP: all you need is to play Guardian Animals once and you win, everything after that is pure auto-pilot. I dont mind a deck having powerful tempo swings/mana cheating as long as it takes thought to play.. this druid deck is more brain dead than aggro lol, its impossible to make a mistake.
I do believe Kael should have a once per turn clause though, allowing its effect to activate multiple times is just asking for trouble..
That's just not true. Period. Guardian Animals played early is very powerful. Played on curve, it's good, depending on what beasts get summoned. Played late it is entirely manageable. Again, the problem is Kael.
NO. The problem is when a deck with tons of ramping can recover the tempo lost and refill the hand in just one turn as we saw in KotFT with ultimate infestation, when druid was 60% of the ladder. The deck does not need Kaelthas to stomp you on turn 3-4.
You're missing my point: he said "all you need to do is play GA once and you win." That's absolutely 100% wrong. Again, played early it is game-ending (or nearly so). Played anywhere between turn 6 and 8 or 9 is tough to respond to, but recoverable. After turn 9, if you can't deal with 2 5 mana beasts (especially against a deck with very limited remove), you deserve to lose. Period. It's only Kael that lets you rush out 2 buffed beasts crazy early.
The problem is not the mana cheating, its the lack of SETUP: all you need is to play Guardian Animals once and you win, everything after that is pure auto-pilot. I dont mind a deck having powerful tempo swings/mana cheating as long as it takes thought to play.. this druid deck is more brain dead than aggro lol, its impossible to make a mistake.
I do believe Kael should have a once per turn clause though, allowing its effect to activate multiple times is just asking for trouble..
That's just not true. Period. Guardian Animals played early is very powerful. Played on curve, it's good, depending on what beasts get summoned. Played late it is entirely manageable. Again, the problem is Kael.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
⚙
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.
It is a good tech option: just not one people are willing to use. Because people would rather demand Blizzard "fix it" (which just means, "make my favorite deck better") then do the hard work of fixing their own decks. I just played a variant of this Druid deck and got utterly wrecked by a control Priest. The meta adjusts: people just need to give it time.
Agreed. The deck IS beatable, but not by every deck. That's always been the case in HS.
Am too. (Given the fact that you're crying like a baby, I thought this response would make you feel right at home.)
Let me know when you actually want to discuss facts. Otherwise, you're not worth my time. Now go tell your mommy on me.
Or, an "I don't know how to play a deck with an actual positive win rate against druid because I keep sticking my tongue into the electrical outlet" type thread.
If you want to keep exchanging insults, trust me, I'm better at it than you. But the simple fact is there are ways of improving your win rate against druid, but people are too lazy to use them. Instead they're misusing the term "mana cheating," misrepresenting how often druid gets the insane power turn everyone knows exists, and whining for a nerf WAY before it's clear it's even needed. At some point, when the meta settles down or when Blizzard is actually able to confirm the nature of the problem, a nerf might be needed. But as of now, it's just a cry-baby rant.
Stop, you're making sense. Didn't you know that this is a "Boo hoo, I'm losing to a deck I don't like. Nerf it!" thread?
You're missing my point: he said "all you need to do is play GA once and you win." That's absolutely 100% wrong. Again, played early it is game-ending (or nearly so). Played anywhere between turn 6 and 8 or 9 is tough to respond to, but recoverable. After turn 9, if you can't deal with 2 5 mana beasts (especially against a deck with very limited remove), you deserve to lose. Period. It's only Kael that lets you rush out 2 buffed beasts crazy early.
That's just not true. Period. Guardian Animals played early is very powerful. Played on curve, it's good, depending on what beasts get summoned. Played late it is entirely manageable. Again, the problem is Kael.