Hearthpwn

Don't think I've seen a topic on this yet, any guesses on which WoW characters could appear as legendaries in Un'goro?

In any competitive game with rpg elements there's going to be a pretty rigid meta. And in addition to that, Hearthstone's tournament format certainly does not do deck variety many favors. 

From an esport perspective, it always has to be remembered that a lot of the decisions around it are for making it a good viewer experience. So that "limits" them on making it a more "pure" judge of skill in tournaments. (For instance, being able to make changes to decks between matches imo would be an interesting addition but obviously would be waaaay too slow.)

I'd also say lumping together all the pro players in assuming they have the same opinions about certain decks is quite inaccurate (just because that's true of everything) 

The problem is what is essentially being asked for is impossible to accomplish (and always has been). There is not going to be a situation where the better player or non-aggro deck wins 100% of the time vs whatever the fotm cancer aggro deck is.

if you made a well built aggro hunter deck right now, even though it's not meta, you would still win a fair amount of games at a competitive level. 

Hearthstone is all about math and averages. Can't have the same expectations as other competitive games. 

The problem I have with this topic in essence is what people are asking for is either too mercurial or not going to happen in a card game. 

You are not going to get a 100% win rate vs aggro if you are the best player in the world meta. 

Theres always going to be some level of rng, and there's always going to be competitive players liking different types of play styles. 

Judging by the quest card, probably deathrattle priest will be pushed? Other than stockpiling gold and dust not much to go on for speculating when it comes to decks which revolve around cards that will rotate out. 

To be fair idk if even at rag quality level that would've made paeltress OP. 

I get what you're saying but idk how much that applies to legendaries since by definition legendaries are rare to get to begin with so I don't think they are made to be throwaways compared to other quality cards. 

I think they just got some reason like to create things for "fun decks" and throw legendaries into it those ideas. Though the why id love to hear them say. 

Because it's a purely defensive quest I don't think the uninteractive part is an issue. Sort of like how Reno isn't considered to be uninteractive. Unless you are playing hyper aggro (and even then sometimes Reno isn't enough). You can still win after they play it. Particularly if you already have a board it can be done very quickly. 

Problem with card design is no one actually knows how they design cards. Or more specifically, why they print bad cards. Particularly legendaries. Hobart Grapplehammer for instance is certainly not a control warrior card. He is bad though. 

Personally, I'd consider it more anti combo than anti aggro (there always will be some form of aggro even if it's slightly slower than pirate).

You play this after a Mage plays Alex and how are you supposed to lose? Same with miracle rogue or any future combo deck. 

Control decks in general tend to have a very limited amount of damage due to them relying on removal instead of any form of face damage. Adding 10 additional health (which puts you out of range of any combo basically) in addition to the heal when you play it is just very hard for me to see how a control deck could easily beat this. 

While it's never been this fast iirc, the meta in general has always been fast. Pretty rare for say control warrior to dominate. 

And for good reason, while in the proper amount aggro decks are good, many view this much aggro as a bad thing. And it's commonly blamed on the power of early game cards and combos (ATM pirate synergy for instance. That kind of combo)

While I agree that's part of it I think there are Two things people are overlooking a lot in examining this. The first is the ladder system and the second is cost of cards. 

The innate problem with the ladder, and idk if it's fixable, is there is not really a reason to play anything but the fastest decks which can win. You don't get more ranks by winning slower. So unless there's a massive difference in power of aggro vs control decks, you rank up much slower playing control. 

Cost of cards I think is another that gets overlooked. On average, aggro decks are much cheaper to make than control. Its a lot of investment to make a control deck, which normally have multiple legendaries, vs aggro which has maybe 1 or 2 (pre patches certainly many has 0). 

And I don't see any way either of these get solved.