3
Quote from DragonConsort >>That is cause of Boom. Again BGH wasn't common before boom except in druid cause the class lacks any viable removal option, the only delusional one is you.
22
can we keep political garbage away from Hearthstone please?
3
Quote from AlchemistApprentice >>Cant wait to say i told you so to everyone when bgh text stays the same and the stats just go down by a little if any at all
I give it 75% odds Blizzard will nerf BGH to oblivion rather than give him a 1 mana cost bump. Do BGH defenders have any answers when I keep saying "what if no one runs 7+ attack minions?"What if no one would run most of them even in case Big Game Hunter didn't exist, but the ones played now would be ridiculously broken (Giants, Alexstrasza and Ragnaros the Firelord come to mind first after the almighty Wildblaster Dr. Boom)
2
After going through many of the posts and feeling the butt hurt here is your honest answer. It's one of the play styles that I enjoy playing. Some people feel that just because they have expensive cards in their deck they should autowin. Usually people who say aggro decks require no thought and are easy play can't play them optimally them selves. Let me clarify one thing. Aggro doesn't mean just going face. Even Face decks don't go 100% of the time. People who have this negative attitude usually try aggro style a few times lose and then can't handle to lose to someone who outsmarted them. For example with Aggro pally is all about making smart trades and controlling the board. It's knowing when to trade and push for lethal. Combo Druid plays a lot like this. One could make the same argument that control warrior is brainless. Armor up, wait for you opponent to play a threat use weapon to get rid of it. Use more cards to get armor, etc. However, I respect all play styles and deck types. Both of these styles require a lot of thought process and planning each turn. I believe what burns people if when they lose to a good player regardless of the deck type and they can't handle the loss. We see more aggro decks as they don't require lots of expensive epics and legendary cards. If anything you should be upset of how TCG type games like this are structured. I don't know why I expect the gamer community to be more mature when it comes to these issues. People play this game as any games to win. Those to drive to better them selves will succeed and those who can't will complain on the forums.
4
Not so much lately. Playing 2 year now, and atm, it's in one of the worst states ever. I'm sure all the lazy Aggro Shaman and secret/Anyfin Paladin players [mostly ex-Face hunters] will say it's great right now. Well, not for those of us who actually like some interaction in card games. It's piss poor, some of the new cards are awful for the game, like Reno, Anyfin, Mysterious challenger, Tunnel trogg, They're screwing up their own game with these OP gimmicks. So, No, I am not really enjoying it.
2
Ok, the deck and guide has been updated. New video series will follow, enjoy.
2
Your question is weird because it doesn't quite match with your post. Anyway, I've come to the long conclusion that netdecking is fine. The reason is because when you become pretty good at the game and get to a comfortable level of skill that you climb to higher ranks each season, you'll come to a milestone (around rank 4 and up) where the decks and tactics do change from the typical "front page" flavor of the week netdeck. This is because for most good players, it's too difficult to climb past rank 4 with a deck that is so well known that the enemy knows your every single card. Good players know that you have to change it up and adjust the deck with your own unique spin to get ahead of the micro meta for your particular rank and server. So what I'm saying is, you do face new and interesting decklist all the time but only if you can climb out of the lower rank gutter where the guppies are all doing the same stuff because they aren't experienced enough to even change a single card from the top netdecks. It's sad really because they have this deck that they think is the best, but really it's not because it instantly became a shadow itself once it became mainstream and everyone knows it.
For instance take the new Aggro Shaman by Reynad. When it was brand new and Reynad was the only one playing it, it was AMAZING, unpredictable and easily the best deck in the game. It was the best deck precisely because it was new and unknown. Once it became well known and was on the front page of every HS website, it stopped being nearly as strong. Now it's not even half as good as it was. All this is to say, I don't see any long term problems with netdecking because if people netdeck card for card they really only hurt themselves and will probably never reach legend that way.
The exception (and problem) is when there's an imbalance in the game and Blizzard is sitting their ass instead of fixing it. Examples would be old Miracle Rogue, old Undertake Hunter, old Patron Warrior, old Freeze Mage, etc. Since those decks were so imbalanced during their peak, you could easily copy the top netdeck and there would be no limit to how high you could rank with it. You're only limitation was running into mirror matches using the same deck. Why? Because when a deck is really imbalanced, the enemy could know every card you play, making the proper counter decklist and STILL get pwned because the OP deck is too good and just wins when it shouldn't. So when netdecks DO become a problem, we need to look at Blizzard and take a real hard look at the balance of some cards. You'll know something is wrong when you see every pro player at a tournament come with the same card for card netdeck.
2
The first move I make in almost every game is squelch.
1
Quote from DreamCrusher11 »Interesting discussion in this thread.
Some might say I am biased because I do like playing Hunter, but I'm trying to stay objective here. Maybe some players run Hunter because it's inexpensive. I disagree, though. I have the cards available to play other decks (including the expensive "wallet Warrior"). Cost isn't a factor; I just prefer a fast-paced match, and I prefer a deck that has few bad match-ups on paper. Hunter fits the bill. I realize not everyone likes fast-paced matches, but I think it's silly for anyone to assume that there aren't others out there who want to play an upbeat/quick game.
What I would like others to consider is that nerfing Hunter or Mad Scientist isn't going to change how you feel toward Hearthstone. Hunter might be the locus of your hatred, because it's in your face constantly on the ladder. However, the root of the problem, in my opinion, is not the design of Hunter, but rather the design of Hearthstone's game modes overall. Ranked Play is ultra-competitive, and that's just how it is. Some might argue that it's too competitive, because the intensity eliminates many decks from being viable. I hear that. On the flipside, we have Casual Mode ... which is just that: casual. It's mostly people screwing around with garbage decks and/or novices getting their feet wet with entry-level cards/decks.
What Hearthstone REALLY needs is one or more NEW GAME MODES. I'm not sure exactly how to design it, but the community needs a place to play Hearthstone at a level somewhere between the "tryhard" Ranked Play and the "noob" Casual Play. I would venture that the majority of Hearthstone players fall somewhere in-between "pro" and "noob". Give us an intermediate gameplay mode. Challenging but with different rules and incentives. Maybe require each player to load up five decks and have the server randomly select one for each match. Maybe limit the number of times you can play a specific class consecutively befor requiring a class change. Just a couple ideas.
in short, it's easy to direct one's ire at Hunter, but it's myopic to do that. Hunter has been nerfed more than any other class (I think) but it remains strong and popular, and as long as Ranked Play remains the main method of playing Hearthstone, that isn't going to change. Instead of petitioning Blizzard to nerf Hunter, instead petition them to offer more new modes of play. Thanks for reading.
That´s some cool ideas, a middle ground would be to update the quests and/or add elaborate achievements that give players incentive to play more than one deck. Maybe re-work the win streak mechanic so it somehow rewards diversity?
In the interest of science I set out to play some Hunter the other day, and I got completely trolled by smug priests and warriors. :) As said in the initial post, I'm less concerned with the hunter power level right now, and more irritated with how frustrating Rexxar can be to face. I´m much more at ease when facing off against a zoo for an example, even though they sometimes kill me much faster than Hunter. I understand that it´s purely psychological but the -removable- minions on board , and the fact that the Soulfires in hand is concealed makes the experience much more bearable.
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
1
I rarely post to HearthPwn, but felt compelled to respond here to the OP. I've been playing Hearthstone intermittently since pre-Naxx, and I can say with certainty that people have been complaining about the aggressive metagame, almost without interruption, for years now.
The classes change, and the cards change, but really, the meta doesn't change. The meta varies between "slightly aggressive" and "seriously aggressive", and that's just the way it is. Lots of people have threatened to quit playing, and some probably follow through on those threats....but there are simply more new players joining in than leaving, and the ones that do leave often return. Blizzard knows that a fast-paced, easy-to-pilot style of game is broadly attractive to more consumers than a complex, patient style of game. This is just the way it is.
While I'm sure that Blizzard wants your feedback, remember that they are probably never going to introduce cards that favor a control-heavy meta-game. That wouldn't fit their business model or their design philosophy. It wouldn't attract new players at the level Blizzard wants/needs.
Hearthstone is a tempo and damage driven game, at least in the Standard mode. This is not meant to sound rude or condescending: if you enjoy being a heavy underdog and you get satisfaction from "beating the system", then go ahead and play control decks. They exist. If your goals are to "make legend every month" (which really isn't important or worthwhile, to most players), then you have to get aboard the aggro train and ride.
1
I really think it's funny that some people are in denial about the forthcoming nerf to Big Game Hunter. Mike Donias stated that BGH is "high on the list" of cards that are being scrutinized for change. Many, many veteran pro HS players have tabbed BGH as one of the worst offenders when it comes to restricting design space and stagnanting the meta. At this point, it would be way more surprising if BGH was not nerfed. Those of you that are in denial about this....I think you're in for a rude awakening.
1
3
The general negative attitude toward aggressive decks on HearthPwn is dumb, and in many ways, hypocritical. Loading up a control decklist with axes, removal spells, armor gain, and card draw does NOT make you a "skillful" or "smart" player. These recent Warrior decks that run double Brawl, double Bash, and double Deathlord are a coward's creation.
Would like to see the community realize that playing a completely passive control deck is just as bad (if not worse!) for the game and meta as the hyper-aggressive "face" decks.
1
1
Impressive run if you truly made Legend in two days' time using Tempo Mage. I took a similar Tempo Mage list up to Rank 2 last month, but then stalled out there really, really badly, and absolutely had to change decks to reach Legend. I have seen evidence (albeit anecdotal) that Tempo Mage is stronger and more viable on the EU server. Although it's likely that the EU meta and NA meta are similar, I would be willing to bet that the prevalences of Zoo Warlock, Secret Paladin, and Deathlord Control Priests are higher on the NA server. Those three matchups, in particular, are quite unfavorable for Tempo Mage, in my experience. Normally, those three unfavorable matchups aren't enough to discourage Tempo Mage, because it's pretty strong versus almost everything else (especially Combo Druids).....but, when the Zoo/Paladin/Priest trio makes up two-thirds (or more sometimes!) of your matches, it's just not realistic to climb effciently with Tempo Mage, in my opinion. I also would not recommend Antonidas, because he is way too slow to deal with aggressive opponents, and all the Warriors and Priests are running ridiculous amounts of removal currently. There is no way that your Antonidas stays on the board for even one full turn; Entomb, SW:Death, Execute, or Shield Slam is guaranteed to be awaiting the Archmage.
2
Gave this deck a spin today after watching your YouTube clips. Played 10 matches (two each versus Druid, Handlock, Secret Paladin, Priest, and Warrior); won 6 of them. This is definitely a deck that can be viable, in my opinion. It is not easy to pilot, however, and matches take a long time (often, seemingly because the opponent has no idea what the heck you are playing). There have been several occasions where I really wished I had Counterspell instead of Ice Barrier, and I wanted to ask your feedback on that proposed swap. One thing is for certain: this deck is unbelievably efficient for wrecking Secret Paladins. I knew that the Secret Paladin match-up is an intentional strength of this deck (per the guide), but even knowing that, I was still impressed by how smoothly I rolled right over Paladins using Firestorm. Granted, two matches against Secret Paladin is not a predictive sample size, but if I start seeing a meta that is very heavy on Secret Paladin (like around Rank 5 in December), I will definitely bust this deck out again and give it a shot. I think most players will want a faster deck for ladder climbing, and I think novice players should avoid this deck completely, but overall I want to praise your creativity and the quality of your guides!
1
I have not logged into my HearthPwn account for over a year, but I just had to log in to report the fun awesomeness I just had with this updated deck on ladder. I matched up with a full control/fatigue Warrior. Not the typical control Warrior that we see all the time. This guy was playing Justicar, Bouncing Blade, Ironbeak Owl, Revenge, etc., in addition to the typical axes, Dr. Boom, Sylvanas, Baron Geddon, Alexstraza, Ysera, Belchers, Shieldmaidens. Of course, he had PLENTY of tools to remove pretty much everything I could get on the board, and then built up a TON of armor. He was obviously playing for fatigue, and he held Alexstraza until the end to reduce my life total once the fatigue damage kicked in. But... he made one critical mistake by playing Ysera early (if you can still call something after Turn 9 "early"), and I Entombed it. He did not know it at the time, but that won the game. He definitely did not see the Priest massive OTK burst of 37 damage!! (two Mind Blasts, two Nightmares, one Ysera Awakens, plus 12 damage from my last minions on the board).
I just want to extend thanks to the author of this deck. This is the ONLY Priest deck that I have ever enjoyed playing. I was a huge fan of the original Holy 4000 when it was first created, and I am equally satisfied with the latest version now. THANK YOU.
2
Hi MarineKing! Thank you for your latest update. I really like and appreciate the gameplay demos you added! Very interesting. If you happen to make more demos, could you show us some matchups against common Mech Mage and Mech Shaman opponents? Also, do you check your PM's here on Hearthpwn?
3
Very good deck and superb guide. I hate Priest but decided to give this deck a try. Went 12-5 right out of the gate, including an 11-1 run. Used Bomb Lobber since I don't have Vol'jin. Otherwise played deck as it's listed above. I think if people aren't succeeding with this deck, it's probably because they didn't read the guide thoroughly. It's rare to find such a well-written and thorough guide. Kudos to the author.