Hearthpwn

Quote from inzane14 »

Most Tempo Rogues tend to run at least 1x Shadowstep to re-use all the nifty battlecries like Big Game Hunter and SI:7 Agent or just burst at least 12 damage Leeroy Jenkins. He isn't that essential but that extra win condition goes lengths in certain matchups.

You may opt to put Edwin VanCleef in there if you wish. He may not get as big as in Miracle Rogue where he shines the most, but with good execution of combos, at best I've seen, a 10/10, and at worst, a Turn 2 4/4, which is still quite intimidating.

Edit: 2x Argent Commander are already essential to Tempo Rogue.

Yeah, I don't see Van Cleef getting that huge in tempo, but honestly he's already a huge silence/sap target. Trying to get him up to 12/12 or whatever probably wouldn't pay off that often I'd guess.

Hi everybody! I just opened Van Cleef as my 4th legendary (after Alexstraza, Cairne, and Jaraxxus). I want to try him out with a tempo deck, but a lot of the popular decks seem pretty reliant on Leeroy as a finisher. In your experience, how essential is Leeroy to this kind of play? Should I sub in something like Arcane Golem as a cheap charge minion, or just another good tempo-y minion like Argent Commander or something?

One of the hallmarks of high-cost legendary cards in Hearthstone is that you will almost never end up playing one with no benefit. They tend to either have a battlecry, a deathrattle, or charge. Failing that, they'll often do something before your turn ends, like Ysera and Ragnaros. 

If all I want to do is spend all my mana convincing the opponent to spend some removal, I'll play a Core Hound. (Note: I actually won't.)

Quote from johntonyrob »

Quote from Anatak89 »

I remember when I first started playing this game, I was thinking "It's not that great. It's just like Magic, except I don't have to spend any money."  A few seconds later, I realized that I DON'T HAVE TO SPEND ANY MONEY and can still be quite competitive.  I'm surprised at how long this thread has been going haha.  It's quite amusing.

Basically, I just think the time invested to get good cards is not a big deal.  If you want to spend all the money, great.  If not, it's still great haha.  This argument is so pointless from both sides.

In all do respect to the argument at hand its frankly not fair for you to come off saying "I just think the time invested to get good cards is not a big deal".   

I take nothing away from your subjective nature and how you allocate your time.  That may in fact be a true statement and it if it is, good for you. But lets just be clear and (no pun intended) put all our cards on the table.

The average joe gamer who plays for an hour a day, does his daily then plays a few ranked games can expect to earn about 50 gold a day.  In two days time, he will have approximately enough to purchase a pack.  A pack, by blizzards own admission, has a 1/20 chance of hitting a legendary. 

So using this metric it would take about a month and a half of never missing a single day to receive a legendary.   Now there are a couple other variables to mention.   There are many legendaries that are generally considered worthless(van cleef, greenskin, choi, nat pagle, tink, etc.) so if you hit one of those, which is likely, you are looking at 3 months(1/4 of a year) of straight non stop daily playing to potentially achieve ONE SINGLE USABLE legendary(again no promises).  

This is the point where people like to steer the conversation and tell you to play zoo or hunter agro, they will tell you legendaries aren't important and you dont need them.   All that is fine and accurate but if you want to truly play the game to its full potential and have as much fun(again subjective) as someone who pays money then you are going to be waiting a long long time, years in some cases. 

Look there is a reason people spend money on packs and cross their fingers that there is a legendary, and when it hits they are excited.  Those are the best  and most fun cards, they make for incredible synergized decks.  There is no denying that, nobody is spending money just to spend money... we want the big guns.  

The best way anyone has described this game is that the game is truly Free to Play until you actually realize that it is pay 2 win(which is fine, but dont deny it).  

Lastly,  it takes A LOT of money even if you are paying to get a collection of the staple legendaries(Baine, rag, ysera, tyrion, leeroy, alex, black knight, sylvania).   It's not just a matter of pay2win, its GAUGE THE CUSTOMER to win.  Its a game, Blizzard deserves to receive profit and revenue, but at some point its excessive and oversteps what is fair and frankly right for the consumer.   

Remember this is the same company who's greed got in the way of game design and pretty much tanked one of their 3 major tent pole franchises(talking about diablo and the auction house)...  they literally had to have the CEO post a response about how sorry and wrong they were.  This type of stuff is in their blood.  Just Giving these guys $50 is not nearly enough to play their game at full potential as a casual average gamer and that's a sad state of affairs as it relates to gaming in general as we move on from here.  

Well, the "average Joe Gamer" who only plays a half hour a day probably doesn't expect the best cards in the game right away. I was one of these players, in fact, and I can certify that as much as I would've enjoyed opening a Ragnaros on my first pack, it certainly wouldn't have shot me up to Legend. I rather enjoy slowly earning cards and building better decks. 

Anyway, if you want to argue that buying decks gives you more options, that's fine. But you're not "paying to win." Not when many of the best decks in the world, like midrange hunter and zoo, are run without a single epic or legendary. You're paying to have a broader array of options. The top players around now regularly get to legend with "free to play" decks, just to prove that it's possible, so don't try to argue that you're stuck at rank 8 because you don't have a Black Knight or whatever.

And here's the thing: if you actually ARE good enough at the game to get to the ranks where you actually need a full stable of legendaries to compete, you can probably "go infinite" in arena, so you can easily earn a pack every 5 games or so (combining arena awards with quests). Do that for a couple hours a day, and you've got 100 packs in a month, and you've still committed less time to the game than any "hardcore" WoW player.

I'm sure it's been said, but... how the hell do you win 1000 games and not earn enough packs to get some good cards?

Actually, Blizzard already seems to have pretty detailed data collection on their back end. In an interview on Valuetown, Ben Brode mentioned looking at the data to see how much drawing a specific card affects your win rate. (His example was Al'Akir, which they almost buffed when he was unpopular but didn't because they saw how effective he was from their back end data.)

I wouldn't be surprised if they had other similar data. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a full log of every game played, which they could dive into for specific data...

Quote from Artea »

There are like 14k of threads crying about flamestrike and mages op on arena. Druids are strong right now for sealed, this will push they a lot more. And rarity arent arbitrary to me, but basic cards dont follow the rarity logic (i asume this). 

Well, I would probably rate this card well below flamestrike for arena anyway, since you won't be able to plan for the combos and situations that make it work best. And presumably all the other class cards will be good too, so Druids shouldn't be gaining too much ground overall. But if you think of basic cards differently, you might want to think of adventure cards differently as well, since in constructed everyone who buys the adventure and plays through it (meaning probably 99% of people above rank 15 eventually) is guaranteed to have those cards.

Quote from Balckovic »

@ClockworkNecktie: How could it be in a combo with pyromancer? Either he is on the board and gets transformed --> no effect, since it activates after the spell. Or he is played after the spell and is just surounded by some trees. There are some options for this card, but also a few problems: 

How to use: 
I think, it has no value to use this card just on your own minions. Yes some cards with deathrattle provide some great value (f.e. nerubian egg), yet almost every other minion has better stats. So there is no use in this, also Baron Rivendare (the new legendary-thing) can't trigger all the deathrattles twice, because he is also a target and becomes a tree. It is mostly a wipe for 1 or 2 big minions, like the giants, the dragons or Ragnaros etc... But you can't attack first. Even, if you have your opponent outnumbered with minions, your newborn trees can't attack this turn. One Consecration/Hellfire/Other AoE and they are in the better position. It also doesn't help against aggro decks. What does it help to transform 4 tiny minions into 4 other tiny minions? If they aren't buffed beyond imagination, you won't get a big advantage out of it.

In Addition: Why does so many people fear the T9 Starfall+Poison Seeds wipe? It's a T9 and you need to good cards to use it. And if you have to, you're in a real bad situation. Also Equality + Pyromancer or Equality+Consecration are some easy and better wipes than this.  

Quote from Luanmt »

I know it's a very specific card combo but it's insane anyway:

Turn 1: Coin + Innervate + 2x Nerubian Egg

Turn 2: Innervate + Poison Seed

It will leave you with 2x 4/4 and 2x 2/2 at Turn 2. Forget turn 1 yeti this right here is insane.

 

 

@Luanmt: For that you need to have 2x Nerubian Egg, 2x Innervate and Poison Seeds in your start hand. It can happen, maybe once in a lifetime. And when you have these cards and go first, it also doesn't work. It won't happen that easily. But your suggestion with Onyxia is interessting. Sadly, all the whelps die to every AoE in existence. 

I was thinking Poison Seeds => Pyromancer => Swipe for a board clear, but I might be missing something?

Quote from Artea »

Its quite op for a common. Needs a lot of test and meta know. 

Obviously the rarity is arbitrary for constructed, since you can't craft these cards or get them from random packs. As for arena - well, Flamestrike and Equality are basic or common too, right? 

Quote from Nuba »

Quote from popje »

Quote from andrewc5120 »

huntard or mid-range hunter? you have to understand that most of the way to legend you'll encounter pesky counter decks. i'd say kolento's mid range is the best as it loses the least. but it is not as fast of the aggro decks. between zoo and huntard, i'd go huntard though.

thanks

Quote from ChaosCoffeeCo »

Where can I buy some high quality cookie cutters?

I know I sound like a dumbass who just want to hit legendary with the skill-less class, but I am very limited in time, I know I can reach legend or at least rank 1-3 but I dont have much time to spend on hearthsonte :/

"I can hit rank 3~1 legend": I read this from every single player in the world, literally. everybody thinks they're legend material with any kind of deck and that they could pilot any control list they're given

COUNTERPOINT: I am rank 13 or so and don't believe I could hit Legend unless MAYBE I had several perfect decks (created by other people) and like 6 hours a day to grind. Probably not even then. ;)

The whole "priests suck" thing seems like kind of a circle-jerk, to be honest.

1. A consensus on message boards develops that priests suck, at least partly because they're slower-playing and tougher to learn than most popular decks.

2. People who read message boards don't play priest in ranked. Instead they play them for funsies in casual mode, meaning they are more likely to lose, because they don't care as much and probably don't put as much time into learning the deck.

3. HearthStats publishes stats saying their users (who are all the aforementioned forum-reading types) suck at Priest. People extrapolate that priests just suck.

Quote from Rabidwhale »

Soul of the Forest+ poison seeds

Yeah. It combos well with:

Soul of the Forest: Extra minions

Force of Nature: extra face damage and minions

Keeper of the Grove, Claw, friggin' Moonfire with Hero Power: kill a 2/2 for cheap

Mark of the Wild: Now your 2/2 takes out at least two enemy 2/2s.

Mark of Nature: Now it takes out three.

Starfall: board clear

Swipe+Spellpower or Pyromancer: Board clear.

...And probably more. Really adds new synergies to the Druid arsenal.

I'm not sure why everyone is worried about making this a board clear with Starfall. It's not like Equality, where without the combo you're turning Ragnaros into an 8/1 that will still fireball you to death if you don't kill him off; with Seeds, Rag becomes a vanilla 2/2 that is much less threatening unless you're worried about enemy buffs. 

Heck, if you're at 8+ mana, a Sen'jin or bear-form Druid of the Claw will protect you from 3 of these guys anyway. Or drop Argus on a couple of your 2/2s to block four of them.

Honestly it seems weird to me that so many people are criticizing this card either as an imperfect board clear or a crappy buff card. Clearly it's EITHER and BOTH, if used properly. Any time your opponent has board advantage it's a decent move, and the fact that you can combo it with stuff like Force of Nature only makes it even more incredible.

Okay, I'm probably a bit out of my rank 13 depth here, but in my experience an ultra-aggro deck like faceroll hunter or murlocks can nuke down zoo fast enough that they can't keep the lifetap flowing. On top of that, in the hunter's case Explosive Trap and of course Unleash the Hounds are both excellent against all the cheap zoo minions.

Zoo has almost no minions with more than 2 health, so priests can get mileage out of smite and nova.

The trick here is that you almost never know you're going to be facing zoo, until like turn 2 or 3, because even if you know the opponent's class ahead of time, like in a tournament setting, murlocks and giants are still prevalent too. So in actual practice it's probably better to just pick a deck that's decent against zoo and also good against other stuff. According to reynad, hunter is the zoo lock's only big weakness, so if you're seeing a lot of zoo on ladder I would probably just switch to my favorite hunter deck (which in my case is a terrible faceroll deck because I don't even have the damn trap cards, much less highmanes.)

Hunter counters zoo pretty hard, doesn't it? Beyond that, AOE and taunts...