Hearthpwn

It's really just lazy design on blizzards part. Everyone automatically thinks face hunter and is immediately against it. It would not be hard to create a card goes against aggro and helps out in the much later turns. You just need to increase the cost and give it some kind of reduction that benefit heavy mid range or control styles.

An off the top of my head example would be - 6 mana - draw 2 cards - Reduce this spells cost by 1 for every card you played that costs 5 or greater". There's a card that aggro would never put in its deck and only decks that are hard casting explosive shot/highmanes or larger get a benefit from.

Either that or make the card draw apply an attack debuff to your creatures for a single turn, then you have to figure out the optimal time to play it if you want to keep any form of pressure. They already have that coded for curse of weakness

Quote from Alfoni >>

I dont want to craft a Gluttonous Ooze , any replacements? 

 

 Just switch out an infernal for that new Geist that destroys all 1 drop cards. It destroys jade

Quote from banstylejbo >>

Quote from Infirc >>

Quote from banstylejbo >>

Quote from KooKie >>

Quote from banstylejbo >>

Quote from perfectbeing >>

Quote from banstylejbo >>

The card was supposedly nerfed so that Blizzard could make new cards without worrying about how broken they would be in conjunction with Blade Flurry. While we haven't seen many cards that would have comboed with it in the last 3 sets, I think it is good that rogue has no strong AOE removal. It helps set the class apart from other classes. Rogue has always had strong removal for single minions, which is what I think their identity should be. If Blade Flurry were to be moved to the Hall of Fame set then I think it should be reverted back to original form, or at the very least buffed to be a bit better than it is now.

 yeah the one glaring problem with that is that they gutted neutral healing, so if you are facing a board flooding deck or something like pirate warrior, you either get a good opening hand that can deal with it or you lose the game outright. Rogue has absolutely no comeback mechanisms if you lose the board (spending your entire hand to clear theirs and end up one creature, while they still have 5 cards in hand...isnt exactly good)

 Even without Blade Flurry Rogue seems to be doing quite well for itself. It's got two high-tier decks in Standard right now (Quest and Miracle). 

 What? When? Where? Rogue is not t1 anymore. It was before un'goro got explored enough

During the HCT events the past two weeks most players ran at least one version of Rogue in their lineups. If most pros are running Rogue at the highest level events then I think we can assume that Rogue isn't in a bad place, even without good AOE removal or neutral healing.

 

again with this dumb argument....let's make something clear in here: you CAN'T compare tournament scene to ladder because of two reasons, 1. less than 1% than the playerbase plays in tournments, 2. Line-ups are static and feature class bans.

those two reasons alone mean that rogue can do good in tournaments because they can target stuff and ban other stuff, plus line-ups mean you can cover rogue's weaknesses with other classes, like bringing Paladin or Mage along to deal with swarm decks that'd kill the rogue, ladder is different tho, you can't support your rogue with your line-up because it isn't line-up based and not being able to ban stuff means you are instantlyd ead against pirate warrior or token decks

TLDR: Ladder =/= tournaments.

I am fully aware that ladder and tournaments are not 100% the same environment, but you can't deny the general sentiment that at the end of the day pros won't bother with a deck that isn't good on some level. A deck has to perform well enough against the other meta decks to even have a spot in their lineup, regardless of the conquest format. If Rogue was so bad they'd be playing Hunter or Warlock instead. Therefore, anyone who plays Rogue on ladder should feel that they have a reasonable chance to win games as well. Sure, you'll have good/bad matchups, but so does every deck/class. Plus, both Quest Rogue and Miracle Rogue are widely considered to be at worst Tier 2 decks by most publications tracking the ladder metagame.

Quote from banstylejbo >>

The card was supposedly nerfed so that Blizzard could make new cards without worrying about how broken they would be in conjunction with Blade Flurry. While we haven't seen many cards that would have comboed with it in the last 3 sets, I think it is good that rogue has no strong AOE removal. It helps set the class apart from other classes. Rogue has always had strong removal for single minions, which is what I think their identity should be. If Blade Flurry were to be moved to the Hall of Fame set then I think it should be reverted back to original form, or at the very least buffed to be a bit better than it is now.

Quote from FreshPrince >>

What's so good about patches; couldn't I just replace him with boar?  I do not have enough to craft him; what could I replace him with?  Thanks; nice guide

Quote from FireCrab >>

Thank you so far thats been working out well although 2 out of the 4 ive played with it actually got emperor from stonehill 

Quote from PainlessSteel >>

Played a bunch of matches in the wild with a slightly modified version of this deck. In ≈15 games no pirate warriors encountered. If I switch to any other deck vulnerable to pirate warriors, I immediately encounter them. This makes me constantly think that Blizzard intentionally prepares matchmaking to lower players' average winrate.

Quote from robert_fanr >>

Actually I think Taunt Warrior is very good for the game !

WHY ?     Because it keeps aggro in check so other people can play more combo or wacky decks without auto losing every other game due to facing a deck that just wants to go face .

Quote from XYZinferno >>

Why the youthful brewmaster? It doesn't seem to fit in. Or am I missing some big combo?

Quote from dzquetzal >>

Quote from SeventhSolar >>

Quote from BeaWolf >>

Let's see...  Magic The Gathering CCG have been around for more than 20 years. A game where you can discard (not put into play) cards from your opponent's hand, and a game where you can destroy an opponents ressources (mana crystals)..  So 20+ years of succes is dumb game mechanics? 

 Actually, land destruction was determined to be unfun and mostly removed.  And few cards allow you to pick which cards your opponent discards.  Those that do cost large amounts of mana, upwards of 7.  That's minimum turn 15 at Hearthstone speed.

Furthermore, it's far less meaningful in Magic because you can have 4 copies of every card in your deck, barring very special circumstances.

True on the land destruction, although I think denial decks are actually a cool archetype (e.g. Pox in MtG) unless they slow the game down too much (like Stasis decks did in MtG, when both players basically don't play anything until one mills out).

Discard however was cheap and perfectly fine. "Duress" was a 1-mana targeted discard (of a non-land non-creature card, but that was enough to wreck combos or check for counterspells). "Hymn to Tourach" was an example of an OP discard card (discarded 2 random cards for the price of 2 mana).

However, in MtG there were also a lot of various Tutors, which made the whole discard/find dynamic between players very much, well, "fun and interactive" :)

I wouldn't mind seeing more interaction with opponents hand in HS, and more diverse conditions on which the secrets trigger to allow for counterplays (in absence of "instants")

I've been playing MTG for 20yrs and you're kind of leaving out some serious differences between the two games. MTG has the ability to protect your plays using counter magic and bounce like effects at any given time (this allows control decks and combo decks to protect themselves even further). Also and more importantly is that MTG has recursion and the ability to delve into your own graveyard to bring cards back directly into your hand or the board. I ran number of decks that consistently abused those mechanics to great extent.

Dirty rat is bad design because its yet another RNG based effect that can either go bad for you or ruin the entire strategy of another deck by accident. Matches should be about strategy, not "33% chance if i pull his Antonidas/N'zoth then he has no win condition" The one upside of HS is that they have stated they will not introduce hand disruption effects BUT dirty rat is exactly that. The meta knowledge is what makes the control match ups such a skill showdown, baiting out removals, trading life for extra cards knowing theres a healer in hand, keeping tribal based creatures for triggering effects, etc.

i replaced one of the vineslayers with an Eater of secrets in order to beat freeze mages, quest mages and mess up control pally hydrologist. Seemed to work well enough

The problem with that is it negates any aspect of counter play in far too many matches, especially control vs control where you are counting their removals or playing around fatigue potential. Its not fun to play a 30min calculated game, only to have it decided on a huge coin flip.

Also it decided a few tournaments this summer. 

Anomalus is the worst legendary printed in that set, faceless fits in dozens of decks....so yes