Quote from Crawford881 >>

the Tickatus deck that uses various tricks to duplicate Tickatus and delete the opponent’s deck isn’t even really competitive.  Warlocks aren’t even really competitive in Standard right now

While I agree with your point about Tickatus there, I do have to disagree with your follow-up comment about Warlocks not being competitive in standard.
The current Prime Warlock deck is insanely good and I personally used it to take me back to D-5 rank from the start of the season within a couple of days play. Obviously that's anecdotal of course, but the deck is still objectively super-strong and most definitely one of the more competitive decks in the current meta. 

Quote from Reinan23 >>

Pen Flinger should not go face imo.

I think Pen Flinger is much more a problem in Libram Paladin right now than it is in Rogue, to be fair. 
As for whether it should go face or not, ehhhh... I'm not entirely convinced that it is a particular huge problem really. 
It's frustrating to play against, but I've yet to see it dominating the meta at all.

Quote from Alex_Strasza >>

I am playing in Standard and I am so tired of meeting only Rogues. Since the last nerfs, I mostly find rogues on ladder. And initially it was okay, but I am the only one who finds it boring to go up against the same deck / class for something like 10 games in a row? I know that there is going to be a new expansion in two weeks but it is so frustrating to meet something like 40% rogues on ladder. Not to speak of 'It wasnt'me' spammed all over again every game....... Am I just being unlucky or does any one else notice this? 

I've been (admittedly quietly under my breath) saying this for some time now. 
The Face Rogue deck is extremely degenerate and (after briefly trying it myself to see if it was as easy to harvest wins as it seemed - short answer, it is; long answer: it is, but by God is it boring to play) it definitely will not be a deck that is missed post-rotation.

And it seems like every netdecking sheep and his mum is playing it at the moment. It's soooooo dull and oppressive. It means that every game becomes a case of either die by turn 7-8 or survive the first 10 turns and watch them auto-concede. 
Meh!

If I recall correctly from my early Hearthstone days, Mircale Rogue required a lot of really cheap spells to be viable, and specifically 0-cost spells. 
Tomb Pillager only requires silencing to be nullified and isn't a big threat if not (without being followed up by the other missing staple cards from the original Miracle Rogue deck).

Quote from Haedeius >>

Impact cant be determined yet. The new content isnt available yet. 

This is true, but we can still ponder the changes based on the information we have to hand. There's certainly no harm in that.
We can't just make sweeping about the future meta.
But this thread is mainly asking which class has been hit hardest "on the face of it" from the loss of the above cards.

Quote from Tyk3 >>

Quote from DeafKnight >>

Quote from Tyk3 >>

I just copied and pasted it to be honest so I don't really care. Also trying to be 'clever' doesn't hide the fact that you've still not addressed how 100% wrong all your points and arguments are in this thread. Infact I commend you though for styling it out, regardless of how much deeper you've dug your own hole with your bullshit.

How is pointing out factual information "trying to be clever"? 
Surely that's just "being clever"...?
All your blustering about me supposedly not addressing arguments (another fallacy - I obviously did, if you actually read the thread) serves only to try and hide the fact you were ironically the one "trying to be clever" with a quote that you didn't even bother to check was real. And then when you get called out on it for "your bullshit" - your classy word, not mine - you lose your temper and start slinging the insults.
That's really not a good look, friend.

I didn't say you didn't address the arguments, I said you haven't addressed that you were absolutely 100% wrong in all of them (which you are). Anyway either you've got a massive chip on your shoulder, or as mentioned by other posters intent on just being a troll so I'll say no more on the matter. 

I "haven't addressed that I was absolutely 100% wrong in all of them"... what is that even supposed to mean? 
I mean, ok - let me address that then. That's completely incorrect and easily refuted by the fact that "I wasn't wrong". That was easy.

Interestingly, people who usually can't deal with their arguments being systematically dismantled often fall back on the Troll accusation trope. It's almost like they are hoping that by calling someone a troll it somehow magically means they don't have to back up their own fallacious arguments and the attention is drawn away from their incorrect statements.

It's quite bemusing that that other chap has apparently blocked me (I presume from his comment) considering I don't think I even replied to him more than once, maybe twice. Again, that's usually the case with people who don't like being faced with reasonable and logical responses to their arguments. Not that it bothers me of course, I have barely ever spoken to the guy, lol - more power to him, I say. 
Though I am impressed I don't think I've ever triggered someone I wasn't having a direct conversation with before, lol.

In any case, this is waaay off topic now and you've derailed this conversation enough with your insults and flaming. That's pretty rude.

Quote from Tyk3 >>

I just copied and pasted it to be honest so I don't really care. Also trying to be 'clever' doesn't hide the fact that you've still not addressed how 100% wrong all your points and arguments are in this thread. Infact I commend you though for styling it out, regardless of how much deeper you've dug your own hole with your bullshit.

How is pointing out factual information "trying to be clever"? 
Surely that's just "being clever"...?
All your blustering about me supposedly not addressing arguments (another fallacy - I obviously did, if you actually read the thread) serves only to try and hide the fact you were ironically the one "trying to be clever" with a quote that you didn't even bother to check was real. And then when you get called out on it for "your bullshit" - your classy word, not mine - you lose your temper and start slinging the insults.
That's really not a good look, friend.

Quote from Dinomaniak >>

Believe it or not, there was a day when I actually took the game seriously.
Nobody knows the amount of brain cells I've lost due to anger that very day.

 You're not wrong - there is something inherently strange in just how much of a red mist Hearthstone can seem to make descend upon you when you lose a game in seemingly huge unfariness of circumstances. 
I've never known another game (or activity) like it to have a similar effect (on me, at least).

In fact on that note, I'll add a 4 to my earlier list.
4. Allowing Hearthstone to rule my emotions when I've lost a game badly and then been in a foul mood to those around me directly afterwards. They certainly didn't deserve that! ;-(

Quote from Tyk3 >>

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

― Mark Twain

 There are a few minor - but key - problems with this.

Firstly, you misquoted the actual phrase. The actual "quote" is:
"Never Argue With a Fool, Onlookers May Not Be Able To Tell the Difference." 
Which, as you can see implies quite a different outcome altogether. Though I can see why you didn't want to use the original since it not only doesn't convey your intended insult, but also reflects poorly on the person posting it if they have already been part of the argument / discussion at hand.

Secondly, this "quote" was never actually attributed to Mark Twain - hence the reason for my quoted word, "quote".  There's no discoverable record of him ever actually saying it. It is a common misconception, most likely started as a base meme and people parroting its inaccuracy.

Thirdly and finally, the quote you probably were looking for (in terms of one that actually exists) is from the Bible. 
Proverbs 26:4 says:
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."

A little harder to interpret and paste to your intended meaning, but it's easy to see where the misquote has come from and how it has morphed into something unintended from its original meaning.

All that said, Biblical-based discussions are probably not encouraged (or even allowed?) on these forums. I don't know. Never had one here. But I assume not.

In fact, going by your original misquote, perhaps I shouldn't be "arguing" with you after all. I bow to your greater "experience".

I think this is a hard question to quantify, mostly because it depends on the month and what the meta is like.
In an expansion month like this one, a lot of people gun for their preferred rank as quickly as possible so they can play around with crazy deck ideas when the expac hits.
Though likewise, there are others (usually the F2P crowd etc) who don't have access to the new cards yet and so will use their bog standard aggro decks to rinse through the deck-testers to try and get a cheap and low-skill ride to higher ranks.

In standard months, it can often come down to how the meta is shaping. In a fast, aggro meta, rank climbing is quicker and so the higher skilled players will raise through to D and L ranks quickly. But in  amore control era, the games take a lot longer and so progression is slower.

The best thing to do if you want to get to diamond (on a normal non-expansion month), is just play as you normally would, get your wins where you can and use your bonus stars. Don't just stop playing because you worry about facing higher level players - this is a good way to get worse because you are denying yourself the practice against higher skilled opponents.

Both Mage and Hunter lose a lot of core identity cards. 

But I think the decision between the two comes down to Hunter because Mage is overall a much more versatile class and can adapt to different playstyles much more easily with its Hero Power and set. Hunter however is permanently keyed into being a smorc class and the loss of some of its key control and combo cards such as the bow and especially key cards like Kill Command and Animal Companion will "hit it very hard" to coin a phrase. 

1. Dusting a golden Hadronax about 2 weeks before Hadronax Druid appeared on the scene and started wiping the floor with it.

2. Week 1 of one of the early expansions crafting about 5 different legendaries that turned out to virtually never see play in any competitive decks.

3. Thinking that hitting Legendary ranks was going to be this bright and amazing "thing" only to discover that it's little more than "more of the same".

Quote from HoraceWalpol>>

Quote from DeafKnight>>

Quote from HoraceWalpol>>

Quote from DeafKnight>>

There could never exist a Mecha'thun deck that uses Deathwing to complete the combo, because in order for Mecha'thun's deathrattle to trigger, you can have no minions on the board. If you use Deathwing to kill Mecha'thun, the deathrattle won't trigger. So I assure you, you haven't seen "plenty of DW" versions. 

I didn't realise that you were watching all of my games to know what I have or haven't seen. >_>
That in itself sounds more like a poor attempt at smarm rather than an actual point. 

However, that argument does not apply to old Ysera, because the card itself - not a supporting card in a deck - HAS fundamentally changed. Before, you played Ysera with the expectation of getting at least one of five different Dream cards, a card type that is uncollectable and specifically tied to her. The Dream cards ARE her effect. Now, those cards - Ysera's effect - have changed. Therefore, the card has fundamentally changed, and it warrants a dust refound. This is completely in line with Blizzard's dust refound policy and not at all inconsistent.

 This is obviously and demonstrably incorrect, based on your previous helpful example and the following detail. 
A card that was not directly altered is being refunded.
Look at it this way. if I put the old version of the card and the new version side by side, just point out the visible difference. Job done. That should be easy enough.

Look, I really want to believe you're arguing in good faith, but you're not doing yourself any favours when you're not addressing valid points such as the Togwaggle example and the fact that the Dream cards are uncollectible and intrinsically tied to Ysera. The change is not visible on the card itself, but it is very clearly functional.

What Togwaggle example? You didn't make one?
You can't complain I'm not addressing arguments you didn't make. I addressed every part of your comment. What on earth are you gong on about?

A very relevant example is the nerf to Solarian Prime, an uncollectible card that can only be generated through Astromancer Solarian. Players were given a dust refund for Astromancer Solarian because its effect had changed: it no longer shuffled a 7 mama prime into your deck, but a 9 mama one. This change was not visible on the card itself, but it was very clearly still a nerf that warranted a refund. Similarly, the cards generated by Ysera have drastically changed, and Blizzard is, as always, giving a refund.

Giving an example of when a card is refunded due to a change doesn't prove anything other than what I am saying. That there is inconstancy. You think I am claiming that Ysera shouldn't be refunded. That is incorrect. I don't care if it is or not. My point is the inconsistency in terms of when things are refunded. When some cards were nerfed so they could no longer be used in Odd / Even decks, they didnt receive dust. When other cards were nerfed, for whatever reason, they did. That's the facts and is literally all I've been stating to this point. 

Also, I'm not saying that I've seen every game you've ever played. I'm just saying that Mecha'thun cannot be activated by playing Deathwing, which is why I highly doubt you've seen it played on ladder. Nerfing Deathwing would not impact the Mecha'thun Warlock combo in any way, so it's very strange that you keep using it as an example. If you're wrong about one thing, maybe you could be wrong about other things too? No judgement, just saying. We're all wrong once in awhile.

 Again, I didn't. If you actually read my post, you would have noted that I made the concession I was thinking about Cataclysm rather than Deathwing - it just so happened that DW was in my mind on another issue at the time. However you laboring over that is quite a strawman argument, not to mention the fact that it's very presumptive to think I haven't come across it in a Discard Meca'thun deck. Which I have. So the point is moot on two accounts really. 

Quote from HoraceWalpol>>

Quote from DeafKnight>>

Quote from x0chipilli>>

Quote from DeafKnight>>

Quote from fusilli>>

Quote from DeafKnight>>

I believe it's been announced on Twitter that there will in fact (somewhat incredibly) be a dust refund for Ysera?
Blizzard's inconsistency when it comes to handing out dust for some changes and not others with no semblance of continuity is remarkable, but hey... Blizzard. :-)

 I don't see any inconsistency. They nerfed the cards generated by Ysera; the closest prior nerf that was similar that didn't give a refund is Thermaplugg with the leper gnome nerf, which was a long time ago now, and paradigms have changed. If the Wondrous wand reduced the cards to 1 mana, not 0, then I'd expect a Togwaggle refund, too.

To clarify - this is not for Ysera rotating. The refund is because the dream cards are getting changed, and most of those changes are nerfs.

Yes, I am aware of the reason for the refund.
The inconsistency is in the fact that some cards getting pseudo-nerfed get refunded, whereas others don't. And then there's art changes that have long been debated as nerfs to cards visually which also don't get refunded. 
So like I say, inconsistency = Blizzard. :-)

I wonder if Deathwing's nerf gets a refund too, actually. 
Original Deathwing was a core component of Maca'thun Warlock. By nerfing Deathwing, it also has a detrimental effect on Meca'thun meaning the card is not as strong. 
Since this is exactly the same effect as nerfing the Dream cards for Ysera (when ysera wasn't directly nerfed herself), we should expect a full refund for Meca'thun, otherwise inconsistency once again. 
I think we know whether that's going to happen or not. :-)

The old dragons are rotating into wild unchanged besides old Ysera whose dream cards are changing to match the new one for some reason. Hence why the refund is valid.

All the new dragon aspects have different names from their classic counterparts and are completely different cards.

Yes.  That was the whole point I was making. 
Old Ysera isnt changing. She is going to wild. Her dream cards are being changed. Which are not the same card. But they dont have a dusrt value, so no dust is really necessary. however Blizzard have decided to refund it anyway, hence : "inconsistancy". 
Honestly, it's like pulling teeth out on these forums at times.

The point about Deathwing (which seems hard for some to grasp) is that a change to that card would affect other cards in a negative way. Perhaps I meant Cataclysm over Deathwing - though I've seen plenty of DW versions - but that's moot and the point is the same.
Going by their history, Blizzard doesn't normally hand out random refunds every time a card is affected y other cards being changed. 

All faux-ccusations of trolling and ad hominems directed toward me aside (which in itself is certainly worthy of reporting), I firmly believe what I am saying is correct. Just because one or two people disagreee dismantles nothing and that claim is somewhat laughable at best.

There could never exist a Mecha'thun deck that uses Deathwing to complete the combo, because in order for Mecha'thun's deathrattle to trigger, you can have no minions on the board. If you use Deathwing to kill Mecha'thun, the deathrattle won't trigger. So I assure you, you haven't seen "plenty of DW" versions. 

I didn't realise that you were watching all of my games to know what I have or haven't seen. >_>
That in itself sounds more like a poor attempt at smarm rather than an actual point. 

It is not hard to grasp your point at all, we all get what you're trying to argue. When a couple of key cards in Kingsbane Rogue was changed, it didn't warrant a refund for Kingsbane itself, because it wasn't the card being changed. We all get that, and we all agree on that.

Well, that's good. Then I guess we're in agreement.

However, that argument does not apply to old Ysera, because the card itself - not a supporting card in a deck - HAS fundamentally changed. Before, you played Ysera with the expectation of getting at least one of five different Dream cards, a card type that is uncollectable and specifically tied to her. The Dream cards ARE her effect. Now, those cards - Ysera's effect - have changed. Therefore, the card has fundamentally changed, and it warrants a dust refound. This is completely in line with Blizzard's dust refound policy and not at all inconsistent.

 This is obviously and demonstrably incorrect, based on your previous helpful example and the following detail. 
A card that was not directly altered is being refunded.
Look at it this way. if I put the old version of the card and the new version side by side, just point out the visible difference. Job done. That should be easy enough.

Quote from x0chipilli >>

Quote from DeafKnight >>

Quote from fusilli >>

Quote from DeafKnight >>

I believe it's been announced on Twitter that there will in fact (somewhat incredibly) be a dust refund for Ysera?
Blizzard's inconsistency when it comes to handing out dust for some changes and not others with no semblance of continuity is remarkable, but hey... Blizzard. :-)

 I don't see any inconsistency. They nerfed the cards generated by Ysera; the closest prior nerf that was similar that didn't give a refund is Thermaplugg with the leper gnome nerf, which was a long time ago now, and paradigms have changed. If the Wondrous wand reduced the cards to 1 mana, not 0, then I'd expect a Togwaggle refund, too.

To clarify - this is not for Ysera rotating. The refund is because the dream cards are getting changed, and most of those changes are nerfs.

Yes, I am aware of the reason for the refund.
The inconsistency is in the fact that some cards getting pseudo-nerfed get refunded, whereas others don't. And then there's art changes that have long been debated as nerfs to cards visually which also don't get refunded. 
So like I say, inconsistency = Blizzard. :-)

I wonder if Deathwing's nerf gets a refund too, actually. 
Original Deathwing was a core component of Maca'thun Warlock. By nerfing Deathwing, it also has a detrimental effect on Meca'thun meaning the card is not as strong. 
Since this is exactly the same effect as nerfing the Dream cards for Ysera (when ysera wasn't directly nerfed herself), we should expect a full refund for Meca'thun, otherwise inconsistency once again. 
I think we know whether that's going to happen or not. :-)

The old dragons are rotating into wild unchanged besides old Ysera whose dream cards are changing to match the new one for some reason. Hence why the refund is valid.

All the new dragon aspects have different names from their classic counterparts and are completely different cards.

 

Yes.  That was the whole point I was making. 
Old Ysera isnt changing. She is going to wild. Her dream cards are being changed. Which are not the same card. But they dont have a dusrt value, so no dust is really necessary. however Blizzard have decided to refund it anyway, hence : "inconsistancy". 
Honestly, it's like pulling teeth out on these forums at times.

The point about Deathwing (which seems hard for some to grasp) is that a change to that card would affect other cards in a negative way. Perhaps I meant Cataclysm over Deathwing - though I've seen plenty of DW versions - but that's moot and the point is the same.
Going by their history, Blizzard doesn't normally hand out random refunds every time a card is affected y other cards being changed. 

All faux-ccusations of trolling and ad hominems directed toward me aside (which in itself is certainly worthy of reporting), I firmly believe what I am saying is correct. Just because one or two people disagreee dismantles nothing and that claim is somewhat laughable at best.