Hearthpwn

Not sure how wild pirate rogue is midrange, the most expensive thing they run besides Smite never costs more than 3 because of swordfish.

Sounds like your deck is set to standard. Click deck name, then Convert to Wild.

Quote from PetiteMouche >>

Quote from JJSawry >>

Quote from PetiteMouche >>

Quote from JJSawry >>

It should be pointed out, Reno on launch WAS trash, he didn't see competitive play until the card pool was larger and better stalling tools got printed as well, along with another highlander incentive. That could be the case somewhat with Renathal as well, he will benefit a lot from a 6set meta instead, so you can play 39 GOOD cards.

 Good point, but as a Wild player, that's none of my concern, right now I don't need good cards, I need DECK SLOTS. And it still invalidates the idea that decreasing the consistency of your deck is always under any circumstance a bad idea. It's not true with Reno and it's not true with Renathal.

 Good luck with that! Took them a billion years to add what, 9 slots? Gonna be 2050 before we get more.

  I seriously need 27 slots for each class, there's a LOT of cards in Wild, so many nuances to each deck, so many decks to begin with..

I'm at a point where I switch between 4 different win conditions for my overload quest shaman just for fun, because I can't afford 4 deck slots for 1 deck. Have you tried Zentimo + quadruple Stormstrike ? It's a lot of fun

 Use an online deck library at this point and copy-paste deck codes, feels like a must for someone who tries a lot of wild stuff.

Quote from PetiteMouche >>

Quote from JJSawry >>

It should be pointed out, Reno on launch WAS trash, he didn't see competitive play until the card pool was larger and better stalling tools got printed as well, along with another highlander incentive. That could be the case somewhat with Renathal as well, he will benefit a lot from a 6set meta instead, so you can play 39 GOOD cards.

 Good point, but as a Wild player, that's none of my concern, right now I don't need good cards, I need DECK SLOTS. And it still invalidates the idea that decreasing the consistency of your deck is always under any circumstance a bad idea. It's not true with Reno and it's not true with Renathal.

 Good luck with that! Took them a billion years to add what, 9 slots? Gonna be 2050 before we get more.

It should be pointed out, Reno on launch WAS trash, he didn't see competitive play until the card pool was larger and better stalling tools got printed as well, along with another highlander incentive. That could be the case somewhat with Renathal as well, he will benefit a lot from a 6set meta instead, so you can play 39 GOOD cards.

Quote from dmirr >>

I think Beast Hunter getting better with extra hp and cards (extra beasts)

 Don't think there are any decent extra beasts right now. Maybe the neutral colossal might work with the extra starting life in the Vanndar build. That leaves 8-9 early game survivability cards which might bring down consistency for powerful turn 5-7 plays. The colossal also probably doesn't play well with Ickman if you're running it.

The faster non-Vanndar builds probably prefer lower beast pool for consistency, so 10 extra cards means it's harder to get the Saber going early enough.

Hunter probably doesn't want Prince without the new expansion cards. Who knows, maybe they will bring death rattle hunter back next, in a Renathal deck. Still got swarm, but no glaive to help with it.

Quote from phiLphiLphiL >>

For the most players it is nearly impossible to create a deck which is somehow able to win. 

For example: i got 2 friends who realy like playing Hearthstone but they know nothing about deckbuilding or how to create a deck. They dont even know how to netdeck. They always ask me to "put some decks in their account". And i'd say that is okay. Not everybody is willing to put much effort into building and testing a deck (me neither).

 

 

 It's fine for new players, no problem, but he-s 'control-focused' and likes 'strong decks'. Plus he has starting blueprints to develop Renathal decks on, he's not doing it from scratch.

Renathal locks I've seen so far seem to have issues pushing their curse count fast enough because of the extra inconsistency in drawing.  Decks with clear mid-game plans seem to struggle a bit with Renathal, like curse lock and big spell mage, seems like a trap in those. So far it seemed fine in druid and quest priest attempts in what i faced.

Neither did I ask for a deck to play myself. Cheers.

Don't think Renathal goes well in tribal decks in standard. Tribal pools aren't large enough for one, and a lot of those decks tend to have a specific game plan. Quest warrior just wants to complete quest early enough, mech mage and paladin want to draw their powerful cards early, like radar detector and spell tutors, same for murlocs in flurgle, clownfish. Larger deck means crappier tribal minions on average and lower chances to draw your high drawn winrate cards. Even pirate rogue in wild is probably WORSE with Renathal, lower consistency in getting the strong plays every turn.

Try making something yourself, mister netdecker, don't wait for theory crafting streams or the VS report. Maybe you're the next Habu and come up with something great!

This culture of waiting and just netdecking is why they started throwing big changes every two weeks to keep stuff fresh. People WILL end up getting burnt out if they keep this up. 

If it was only Renathal as a low roll in big decks, you'd just live with it, just like big hunter lives with the risk of pulling Hydralodon from saber, which is usually terrible. The issue i see is Renathal vs Vanndar in big decks, on top of the card pool not being large enough ATM. More likely he'll see play in attrition decks with no serious finisher. Paladin smite decks probably will avoid it for example.

Biggest issue is the combination between size and average quality of the card pool. You end up having to play jank to fill a 40card deck, while also losing consistency. We'll see if Castle launch improves it enough. Interesting either way, larger deck+new cards might make stuff like Hooktusk good enough.

Not sure there are enough good cards to make a 40card Reno deck in standard? Larger deck means lower odds of getting strong plays when you need them on curve, at least considering the limited pool in standard. Probably gonna be great in wild tho.

I think there actually is a brawl that forbids legendaries and epics, and i doubt this idea will go any further than that. There's already so many modes to split the population in already, adding one extremely specific doesn't really help, just look at where classic ended up.

While i don't care one way or another, a hs forum can function just fine without down votes, I'd point out that reddit, text based AND a cesspool, works pretty much based on this approach. It obviously wouldn't be as important or impactful on a forum, but that doesn't mean we need to go back to early 90s forums with the simplest ways of doing things, there is room for progress.

Quote from JollyCroquet >>

Quote from JJSawry >>

Oh god, he talks about democracy, on a private site no less. It would seem you're not mature enough to understand adult world.

 What does democracy and this being a "private site" (which it certainly ain't) have to do with each other? I'm pretty sure the white house/10 downing Street etc are all private buildings too but are also part of democratic countries. 

Also if anything, private sites are closer to a democracy than public sites (like this one is) because everyone who is allowed access to them generally have more say/power on the site. 

 The 'democracy' people mention is about 'free speech'. Free speech laws exists to stop THE STATE from controlling it, not a private party in a private setting. 10 downing and the White House most certainly CAN and WILL force you to control your demeanor, while if you're in my house i can control your speech and actions by kicking you out. You have no right to 'free speech' in my house, just like you have no intrinsic right to free speech on this site in particular. You have it because THEY allow it, in their private setting. Because they chose to moderate they have an obligation to keep doing it, so THEY don't become liable for something YOU say. A private site has nothing to do with democracy, it's not legally a public quorum, even if Musk implies it.

That being said, from a functional point of view, having likes and dislikes counted and shown separately can show that a thing is popular yet contested. Having them shown together in the same situation can imply lack of interest instead. First approach just gives more information.