Hearthpwn

That's not what aggro means

This card would be good if mid-range Hunter still existed. It simly does not. Mid-range Hunter has not existed for a very long time now. Spell Hunter got no love, so it looks like either deathrattle Hunter or bust. 

Hunter is currently mid tier 2, but has not yet seen the drop that comes after the meta has fully taken effect after a new expansion or major balance patch. Hunter is going to drop soon and be likely bottom tier 2 (I'm an optimist) with its best deck as the past had indicated. Hear me now, quote me later.

Made a couple of changes. Apparently I was really light on both 2 drops and three drops. I also got rid of 1 of the bowman and inserted another 1 drop to make getting a 1 drop early on more likely. I am kind of weary though about having so many 1 drops. Most of, if not all of the 1 drops are kind of dead cards late game. 

So I would like some suggestions to this deck (constructive only). I am going for a kind of value and removal hybrid. It has plenty of removal as well as options for re-filling the board. It, of course, also has Deathstalker Rexxar. Was thinking maybe went a little too much into removal? It's supposed to be more aggressive decks while still being able to somewhat play a long game through pure value. Anyways, what do you guys think? Thanks.

Brandon

https://www.hearthpwn.com/deckbuilder/hunter#8:2;225:2;305:1;363:1;488:2;630:1;55454:1;55500:2;55568:1;58724:1;61827:2;61829:1;73332:2;76950:1;76996:2;89346:1;89381:2;89387:2;89441:1;89477:2;

Hunter has a slight disadvantage against Razakus Priest and does well against Big Priest and Dragon Priest. Razakus Priest is the go to deck for Priest and is currently Tier 1 and makes up 87% of Priests on the ladder. Big Priest makes up 13% of Priests on the ladder and Dragon Priest makes up 1% of priests on the ladder. I am much willing to trust the data gathered than some person's anecdotal evidence. Data is much more reliable of a metric by leaps and bounds, especially when it's pitted against anecdotal evidence based from memory. 

Hunter player rate actually plummeting because of it having a naturally bad win rate. It was popular for about 2 days then it dropped off. Right now it’s a tier 4 deck. It’s play rate dropped by ~6% in one week. It actually is the weakest clas in the game at the moment. /endthread 

Just got angry chicken plus carrion grub. 4 mana 3/6 that can enrage for +5 more attack seems like REALLY good value. Too bad the Hunter DK hero card isn't ever going to see play

Quote from Jarsniffer >>

There are a ton of common neutrals hiding still. Lets see how it looks on Monday.

Guess the deck is fine as is as I have gotten no suggestions or comments. 

Basically I am going for a deck that controls the early game and snowballs from there. Honestly though i'm a litle iffy on Dinomancy but it's one of the few options Hunters have to trade up even though it's a large investment before it becomes reasonably costed for it's effect (2 mana to do nothing). Anyways, let me know what you guys think. 

It agree it's really OP if you're AFK.

Funny that you make fun of a zoo style Hunter when actually that's what I play (still capitalizes on beast synergy though)

Quote from OriginalPerly >>

Quote from BVanScoy1 >>

Quote from OriginalPerly >>

Quote from BVanScoy1 >>

If your standard for whether or not a class should be viable is that they can't have ever been overpowered in the past then literally every single class in the game shouldn' be viable. There have been class much stronger than undertaker Hunter ever was but you don't see the same arguement being used to prevent them from even becoming viable. Your "arguement" is terrible.

 I was looking to find some stat that would cover off what I said but was unable to. Then Ben Brode confirmed today Undertaker Hunter as the official Blizzard licensed worst deck.

And if it comes from Blizzard it must be true, right?

 

Is my arguement no longer terrible?

 BLIzzard has proven time and time again that when it comes to statistics regarding class balance they can't tell heir ass from their elbow, so no. It's why we look at third party sources when it comes to data collection and figuring out which decks are overpowered and what deck is underpowered.

 Yeah absolutely. Because the last thing that Blizzard do is to stat track their games and see how the meta works. They just blindly throw new content into the mix in all of their games and ignore what everyone else says.

It's OK to be wrong sometimes but please don't try and justify the indefensible. 

 

Quote from OriginalPerly >>

Quote from BVanScoy1 >>

If your standard for whether or not a class should be viable is that they can't have ever been overpowered in the past then literally every single class in the game shouldn' be viable. There have been class much stronger than undertaker Hunter ever was but you don't see the same arguement being used to prevent them from even becoming viable. Your "arguement" is terrible.

 I was looking to find some stat that would cover off what I said but was unable to. Then Ben Brode confirmed today Undertaker Hunter as the official Blizzard licensed worst deck.

And if it comes from Blizzard it must be true, right?

 

Is my arguement no longer terrible?