• 0

    posted a message on Want to beat Mill Druid Tavern Brawl?!?

    Upgrade, Bloodsail Cultist, Dread Corsair (thanks for drawing a board full of 3/3 taunts for me, Mill Druid!)

    Tundra Wolf, Stonetusk Boar, Desert Camel (also beats almost everything else)

     

    Posted in: Tavern Brawl
  • 0

    posted a message on Share your Welcome Bundle vibes!

    Was it rigged so that you also got a second legendary in one of your ten packs?  It happened to me in both of my accounts:

    N.A.: Cenarious, Ysera (!)

    Europe: Tirion Fordring, King Mukla (¡)

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Top 3: Anti-Mill druid Decks compilation.

    Rogue: Faerie Dragon + Backstab + Shiv

    Faerie Dragon can't be Naturalized. Backstab clears the Druid's board perfectly. Shiv makes the deck viable against other kinds of decks, and provides reach (carefully!) against Druid.   

    Posted in: Tavern Brawl
  • 1

    posted a message on Top 3 - Tavern Brawl #66

    Love this Brawl!  Have been beaten by some very creative decks.

    However: I don't love all the Mill Druids!  Seriously, guys?!?  I mean... Seriously?1?

    My current counter:

    1. Backstab
    2. Faerie Dragon
    3. Shiv

    Every Coldlight Oracle gets Backstabbed, and you always have enough because they're always playing Coldlight Oracles.

    Faerie Dragons can't be Naturalized, so the only way that they can play Naturalize is on their own Oracle on the same turn it's played.  Therefore you are hardly being milled faster than they're milling themselves.  Meanwhile, they have to deal with a board of 3/2's with no minions of their own.

    Although it is counterintuitive to play Shiv against a Mill deck, Shiv is necessary for winning against other matchups. 

    Posted in: Tavern Brawl
  • 2

    posted a message on Wild will soon be the dominating format?
    Quote from maroon5five >>

    People who play this game for long periods of time enjoy meta changes and wild will have fewer and fewer of those as time goes on (unless Blizzard just continues to powercreep, which is possible). I don't think wild will ever be the go to mode just for that reason.   

    Personally I don't look at it as "throwing my money away" as I do get enjoyment from playing while the cards are in standard, and I can always play wild with older cards if I want to (and I certainly do play wild on occasion to play my favorite classic decks).

    I play Wild exclusively in NA.  My experience has been that the last two expansions have changed the Wild meta.  I think that that will continue to be the case. 
    But: I like Wild, but it is unfortunate that Blizzard has created the new format system as an excuse to never, ever have to rebalance an expansion card. 
    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Blizzard removing more cards from Arena?!

     @ raikaria: Totally agree about Demonfuse.  Demonfuse is bad because it is extremely expensive and tribe-dependent, and the one card that allows you to get a demon no matter what (two Imps at least from Sense Demon), has been confusingly removed from Arena but not Demonfuse. 

    Also: By removing 3 commons from Mage, that means that there is a greater chance of Flamestrike and Firelands Portal being offered. 

    Posted in: The Arena
  • 0

    posted a message on Fewer Flamestrikes since ONiK?

    Just my impression, but it seems like I'm facing fewer Flamestrikes since the release of ONiK.  Noticeably fewer. 

    Of the last four mages I played against, only one played a Flamestrike. 

    The card pool got bigger and the commons are skewed toward ONiK, so I guess it makes some sense. 

    Finding that it doesn't pay right now to play around Flamestrike...

    Posted in: The Arena
  • 0

    posted a message on Blizzard removing more cards from Arena?!
    Quote from TachiiDerp >>
    Quote from Ehronatha >>

    Disagree with:

    Sense Demons, Charge, Confuse, Poison Seeds, Soul of the Forest

     You got to admit Poison Seeds is horrible though, lol.
     It's not great, but it is a board clear of sorts when board clears are desperately needed.  Maybe "area effect of value removal" is a better term. 
    I still don't get Sense Demons - demon decks are actually viable to draft in arena because so many common and rare warlock minions are demons and good.  Just because it's not viable in constructed doesn't mean it's not viable in arena. 
    Charge isn't great, but one copy can have a huge impact in the late game.
    I had a Confuse in a recent 6-3 Priest deck.  I used it on two or three occasions like an expensive reversing switch when my opponent only had one big creature out.  Actually devastating. 
    Posted in: The Arena
  • 0

    posted a message on Blizzard removing more cards from Arena?!

    Disagree with:

    Sense Demons, Charge, Confuse, Poison Seeds, Soul of the Forest

    Posted in: The Arena
  • 1

    posted a message on Why does Blizzard nerf cards into oblivion?

    They seem to only want to make concise changes to cards, rather than completely redesigning them.  See, they can change the cost, stats, or effect of Ancient of Lore, but they can only change ONE of those things.  Otherwise it would just be too much for the average player to grasp.  (Yes, that was sarcasm.) 

    Of the recent nerfs, only Force of Nature and Blade Flurry had both cost and effect changed, and those were spells.  Force of Nature was the ONLY nerf that also saw a mitigating benefit. 

    Blizzard wants to keep it simple and is extremely conservative about changing any previously released cards.  Blizzard doesn't care if a card becomes completely uncompetitive.  Blizzard wants to push the game in certain directions.  Therefore some cards get nerfed into the ground.

    Personally I think that all the basic class cards should at least be marginally playable for new players, so I think that Warsong Commander and Buzzard were too harshly nerfed.  I also think it's bad that so many classic rares and epics are terrible since new players also have access to so few of those.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Just went 7-3 as Priest. Guess how many times I went first?
    Quote from Sub_Salac >>
    Quote from Ehronatha >>
     As a reacting player, it seems you have to have cheaper cards in order to both deal with a threat and get your own on the board.     
     Or just BrokeBack it with Firelands Portal x3 like my last opponent after I was 2-2 :/
     Uh, yeah.  I just finished a 7-3 run as Paladin.  Luckily I only played against three Mages in the run, losing against two.  Was very salty after I lost to the triple Firelands Portal in one game. 
    Seriously, Blizzard, this card needs to be a rare in Arena.  Now. 
    Posted in: The Arena
  • 0

    posted a message on Just went 7-3 as Priest. Guess how many times I went first?
    Quote from Sub_Salac >>
    Quote from Ehronatha >>

    To clarify, I won each of the 7 games in which I went first, and I lost each of the 3 games in which I went second.

    I've been playing a lot of Arena lately.  These results are making me re-evaluate how I use the coin and mulligan as the second player.   

     

     Could you elaborate about using the coin? I'm trying to learn ^^
     That's just it - I don't know. 
    I've always just used the coin to get something on the board as quickly as I could, even if it meant having no follow-up.
    Conceptually I'm going to start thinking about how to the use the coin to become the active player, as opposed to just getting something out there.  Those are usually the same thing, but the latter seems clumsy.  Also, I think I'm going to start mulliganing more aggressively for 1- and 2-drops as second player, even at the expense of 3-drops.  Then again, maybe I should be trying to coin a good 3-drop - I don't know.  It just seems too hard to come back if you miss a drop on curve unless you're a mage, rogue, or paladin with divine shield stuff. 
    I'm also starting to think more in terms of cards that are good as the active player vs. those that are good as the reactive player.  My priest deck was a great active-player deck since its strategy was to play big minions on curve that the reacting player had difficulty dealing with.  The cards were too expensive for a reactive deck.  As a reacting player, it seems you have to have cheaper cards in order to both deal with a threat and get your own on the board.     
    Posted in: The Arena
  • 0

    posted a message on Just went 7-3 as Priest. Guess how many times I went first?

    To clarify, I won each of the 7 games in which I went first, and I lost each of the 3 games in which I went second.

    I've been playing a lot of Arena lately.  These results are making me re-evaluate how I use the coin and mulligan as the second player.   

     

    Posted in: The Arena
  • 0

    posted a message on How the game should be balanced or nerfed
    Quote from ambershee >>

    Most of those cards don't need touching.

    Call of the Wild is pure BS though.

    Not even for Call of the Wild.  Blizzard's team doesn't make ANY mistakes when it comes to balancing because of all the thought and time and effort they put into it.  And even if something might be a bit unbalanced, it'll just rotate out in two years or be balanced by a card in a new set in six months, so it's okay.
    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 4

    posted a message on Just went 7-3 as Priest. Guess how many times I went first?

    If you guessed 7, you were right! 

    As I looked at my other recent games, the trend towards losing as second player is there, but I've never seen anything so blatant. 

    So a tip for doing well at Arena: always go first! 

    Posted in: The Arena
  • To post a comment, please login or register a new account.