Hearthpwn

As a shaman player right now, i just chill at rank 10 building random decks and trying them out, hoping to find something that works well....and never expecting to win. But it’s nice to not care about your rank, and just have fun with the game.

Totem shaman, you’ve busted out 2 reflections and a splitting axe. Drawing more than you’ve ever seen a shaman draw before. Next minute you’ve over drawn 12 cards and your dead!

Never go full manatide.

I play a similar deck, ive been trying hard to get spell shaman, with arcane watcher and spell book binder to work. I just think the requirements are too high and can fail easily for the reward and your better off going for the burst damage, at the moment. 

Because you want to play spellbook binder early, but generally can’t because nothing with spell damage sticks past a single turn during turn 1 and 2. Then you might get a vashj out turn 3 and then do you really want to be playing binder just to draw a card? All classes have amazing 1/3 1 cost minions, we got surging tempest, the worst of the lot in my opinion. A 1/3 +1 spell damage would make a world of difference for shaman and I think that’s what we need.

Another thing is the definite need of lightning breath, it’s he only good reasonably priced removal all that doesn't overload you to the shit house if you play it early. But requires a dragon.

So I do believe the spell damage, dragon rout is the way to go, and this deck is a step in the correct direction. 

Always nice to see  Shaman spell deck! Nice work mate!

Quote from Imnotinchargenow >>

Quote from thepowrr >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

If they are really going to nerf Sacrificial Pact, better they nerf at least two Demon Hunter cards and not just one.

 Get over it buddy, you think you're smart but you're not. Tell me another class that counters a entire class (like DH) with a spell that costs 0.

Yeah thought so.

 You could make an argument about cards like hungry crab countering all murloc decks and thats a neutral. The difference is sac pact is decent against non dh decks since you can kill a friendly invoked 1/1 demon and heal against aggro.

Quote from Imnotinchargenow >>

Quote from thepowrr >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

If they are really going to nerf Sacrificial Pact, better they nerf at least two Demon Hunter cards and not just one.

 Get over it buddy, you think you're smart but you're not. Tell me another class that counters a entire class (like DH) with a spell that costs 0.

Yeah thought so.

 You could make an argument about cards like hungry crab countering all murloc decks and thats a neutral. The difference is sac pact is decent against non dh decks since you can kill a friendly invoked 1/1 demon and heal against aggro.

 He can also kill magtheridon wit sack pack. Which is a little BS imo.

Been playing this deck a lot since my last post, definitely starting to get a grip on it! Super fun deck and pulling of a lot of wins now.

This deck has been fun so far, but haven’t been able to pop off a win. But it has been very very close every time. This is my first rogue deck so that probably explains why. I’m certain with more practice this deck can win a lot!

The card draws are a necessity, you have to balance your secret usage carefully. And use your stealth minions wisely. The synergy’s are so important. This deck is an eye opener for me and I think you need quite a bit of skill to play it!

The only card I question is the EVIL Miscreant, i have found it sitting in my hand a fair bit. It may have to do with my inexperience with rogue. Am looking forward to your update!

Quote from Wingdude22 >>

@Rradogs Absolutely true. But to be fair a whole new class and tons of other stuff ... yeah i can see why they skiped a new mechanic/keyword in this expansion.

 

Also in general its weird to see deamons in Druid, Hunter etc. , ok it fits the expansion theme but in hindsight i could imagine new players be like : wtf why does Hunter have a deamon?

And also big hugs at @N0xshus <3 i had the same typo in the beginning(ok, for several years) with Rouge :P .Its usually the word non native english speakers are more familiar with since it has a french background, i could imagine.

 Thanks a lot! appreciate it! :)

Quote from Rradogs >>

Maybe they want to reinforce other archetypes for Rogue and Shaman by giving them more support. Also what effects could those classes have. Also in this expansion we do not receive a new keyword in general, the only new keyword was Outcast but it is only for Demon Hunter.

 I see what you mean. I guess evolve and stealth are long term plans then. The future looks bright, cheers for the response.

Thanks to the people who actually had something constructive to say. The toxicity here is on another level. Good luck

I will remember this forever now, thanks

Anybody have any reasoning behind this? I know they didn’t specifically say every hero would get one, but it just seems a bit odd. I was really hoping for one and am a little disappointed, as I’m mainly a shaman player. I do love the additions we have for the two classes though!

cheers

Da shaman master rite here

It's only impossible to balance a class, insofar as it's impossible to match your idea of "balance". What is "balanced" supposed to mean? What is your "middle ground"? Good, but not too good? Common, but not too common? High variety, but not viable in all ways? And more importantly, is it really about classes or decks or the metagame as a whole?

Some would say, "balanced" can't coincide with a class having two or even three strong decks (like Hunter currently), because that would be a "clear sign" that the class is "too strong", regardless of how strong excactly the decks are. However, some might actually see multiple strong decks of a class as proof of balance, because it would mean that different themes in a class are equally well developed, giving you more options to choose from instead of relying on one specific trick that may or may not continue to work out when the meta changes. So, already it is debatable whether "balanced" needs to mean, that a class has only one good deck, or many. And then it's another question how good the decks are allowed to be.

To some people, "balanced" means that a class has only "tier 2" decks, because that means the class isn't at the top but still viable. To others, "tier 2" might not be good enough, perhaps even too weak, if you have a decent chance to beat other decks, but are likely to lose against the best (and usually most popular) ones. But if a class can only be balanced if it isn't at the top, it would mean that a class can never be balanced AND strong, which is a bit silly. It would mean that a class is only balanced if it's significantly weaker than others; instead of being as strong as others. Not exactly what I would consider as balance.

Part of the problem here is that everything at the top is almost automatically considered as "too strong" and "cancer" and "needs to get nerfed". However, for as frequently as you hear people complain about something being "broken", it's not easily identifiable what is really unfair. Even the best decks usually have poor matchups, and their advantage is that their counters are generally not as viable or have more variance in their performance. Is the deck "too good", or is their counter simply not good enough against everything else? In that case, you can't really talk about whether a class or even a deck is balanced, but whether the metagame is. In other words, there would be no unfair decks, only insufficient counters.

To the developers, "balance" actually depends on the prevalence more than on the powerlevel. To them, a deck with a 40% playrate and a winrate of 54% is more problematic than a deck with a 90% winrate and a 0.2% playrate, because people complain about the decks they see the most, and hear the most about, not about decks they almost always lose against but only see once in a blue moon and that very few have even heard of. 54% isn't a huge winrate, but when you'd see the same deck several games in a row, you will lose eventually, and if nothing else be annoyed by always seeing the same cards. And the developers care less about classes being "balanced". While it can be considered problematic if 50% of all players play one out of 5 different Rogue decks (and each 10%), they don't think it's necessary that there is always one good deck for each class, as long as different playstyles (and thus counters) are represented.

Bottomline, it is indeed pretty much impossible to have a class balanced. It's difficult enough to define what would make a class "balanced" in the first place, and what you end up with would likely go against sentiments of most players: A deck, or class, is either decent but unremarkable, thus inferior to others, or about to become the next deck that everyone plays, turning it into a "problem". You really only have it balanced when every class is exactly on the same level, and that is very unlikely to achieve, especially with a design team, that sees no reason to force equality.

The other way out is to just give up on the whole "balance" idea and only point out decks that really are sporting a very high winrate against almost all other decks over an extended period of time (that is more than a week or two), and in some rare cases, there are decks that warp the metagame so much that they are actually problematic on a deeper level. These are the exceptions. For all the other cases, just deal with it that there are decks and classes that will periodically be better or worse than others.