Hearthpwn

Quote from Mohamed_Dean >>

Quote from Nargacuga15 >>

Quote from Mohamed_Dean >>

Zul'jin is annoying to play against. Better than shudderwock, considering the hunter spells used are much stronger than battlecry effects of cards in general. I did make a thread about it on the hearthstone forums, here:  https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/hearthstone/t/zuljin-anyone-got-suggestions-on-how-to-counter-his-play/12578/4 and close to the majority of players there agree that it's broken. It offers way too big of a swing as one card. 

The main point against a Zul'jin nerf, which has been debated already is that "Zul'jin needs set-up for it to be OP" -> Well, hunter decks not running Zul'jin, run the same set of spells usually as those running him. On their own, the hunter spells are good enough. Zul'jin essentially magnifies that with his effect. I would argue that Zul'jin acts as both a tempo swing, removal tool, and a way to set up lethal for the next turn.

 

 I disagree with you. I do feel that Zul'Jin is strong, but a 10 mana play is a 10 mana play: It better be good. Zul'Jin, although not ENTIRELY randomly, still slings spells at its own face, minions, and does them in an order sometimes that is more a detrimental turn 10 play than say another copy of unleash the beast in your hand plus more removal. Hunter has weaknesses: little to no natural healing, virtually no way outside of the hero card to gain armor, minion based removal spells or random chance removal aside from Marked Shot now. You're choosing to put the blame on the card because you likely matched a Hunter and he pulled the win with Zul'jin after every spell miraculously went in order and favorably changed the board...maybe one time too many for your fortune. Shudderwock currently finishes the game in its use. It doesn't set up a lethal turn- it outright battlecries the damage where the damage needs to go thanks to doubling up on Lifedrinkers. It creates a one mana option at the very least that either finishes the job or stabilizes without fault in some cases just like Zul'Jin. The best hunter spell is a 3 mana removal and even that is random effect. Unleash for 6 is piss poor as a rushing 5/5 is usually not the most efficient answer when needed. It lives with 2-3 health on average and is easily answered the next turn. At worst, it hits divine shield as your only mechanic to open the window for a decent trade. I don't think Zul'Jin now, or ever, needs to be changed or nerfed. Hunter is right where it needs to be, and if the meta wanted to counter it then it would die off like any other deck. All of you love Mage and Warrior so face the consequence of the answer.

 I'm going to agree to disagree. I've already stated in the thread I linked about why Zul'jin is problematic, to me. Many people (most) agree, just the same way most agreed that Luna's at 5 mana was game-defining. ZUl'jin, irrespective of the mana cost to use him, is game-defining. If you can't beat the hunter before turn 10, you're most likely going to lose.
Zuljin offers, in ONE turn (i.e. when you play him):
1. Clearing your opponent's board
2. Setting up your own board
3. Refilling your own hand
4. Setting up lethal for next turn

If, me, the opponent has set-up lethal for next turn, one card being played (Zul'jin) shouldn't be able to nullify that lethal set-up while also setting up lethal for the person playing it, and also provide stability. 

 Agreeing to disagree is perfectly fine. I'm voicing the opposition because Blizzard does, occasionally, care about what people say about cards and I feel that many will disagree with you and see my or other's points to keep the card the way it is. I think most is an overstatement. I've been that person typing a card into google with some "hate tag" attached to it to see where people are complaining so I can join in. It's pretty easy to find people who agree on threads built for it. For purpose of arguing against this point further, because nerfing the card is your goal and preserving it is mine:

1. Zul'Jin and Luna's Pocket Galaxy are NOT in the same bracket of cards. Zul'Jin is like Bloodreaver Guldan or Puzzle Box. The random order effect nature of Puzzle Box mixed with the "revive" of certain cards/minions like Guldan. Pocket Galaxy isn't a "roll the dice for a save" card. You don't play it to try to survive or turn the game, you play it to secure an absurd level of mana cheat EARLY in the game. Early versus late and permanent mana cheat on cards not meant to experience it vs a stability dice roll. 

2. "If you can't beat Hunter by turn 10, you are most likely going to lose." Prove this. Show some stats. You can't just say this because you don't like the card. I have lost PLENTY of games after turn 10 to control decks that got there against me. This being regardless of the Zul'Jin play because I needed to use it at the right moment and still lost.

3. Your bold point. Yes playing a 10 cost card SHOULD stop your lethal if it is a legendary and built to do so. It DOES NOT guarantee a lethal set up for the Hunter, as it's played winrate is currently 59% and 61% in the two highest winrate Hunter decks. Therefore it successfully closes/turns the game the low majority of the time- including times where you already had a decent chance to win and needed a finisher. It does offer stability, but I did just compare it to a card of the same mana cost that in its meta rotation brought back 1-3 Void Lords with taunt that made more taunt minions. This card TRULY knocked you out of the game with up to 75% winrate on play recorded average. (All data on HSReplay).

I'm not trying to attack you personally, you're making your point and showing experiences of why you don't like the card. However, I think it is irresponsible to let posts like that go without debate or opposition because Blizzard DOES watch and I would hate for this card to get thrown into the nerf table just because a few people had bad experiences against it. If you bring data to the table that proves something otherwise I am welcoming it.

Quote from Mohamed_Dean >>

Zul'jin is annoying to play against. Better than shudderwock, considering the hunter spells used are much stronger than battlecry effects of cards in general. I did make a thread about it on the hearthstone forums, here:  https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/hearthstone/t/zuljin-anyone-got-suggestions-on-how-to-counter-his-play/12578/4 and close to the majority of players there agree that it's broken. It offers way too big of a swing as one card. 

The main point against a Zul'jin nerf, which has been debated already is that "Zul'jin needs set-up for it to be OP" -> Well, hunter decks not running Zul'jin, run the same set of spells usually as those running him. On their own, the hunter spells are good enough. Zul'jin essentially magnifies that with his effect. I would argue that Zul'jin acts as both a tempo swing, removal tool, and a way to set up lethal for the next turn.

 

 I disagree with you. I do feel that Zul'Jin is strong, but a 10 mana play is a 10 mana play: It better be good. Zul'Jin, although not ENTIRELY randomly, still slings spells at its own face, minions, and does them in an order sometimes that is more a detrimental turn 10 play than say another copy of unleash the beast in your hand plus more removal. Hunter has weaknesses: little to no natural healing, virtually no way outside of the hero card to gain armor, minion based removal spells or random chance removal aside from Marked Shot now. You're choosing to put the blame on the card because you likely matched a Hunter and he pulled the win with Zul'jin after every spell miraculously went in order and favorably changed the board...maybe one time too many for your fortune. Shudderwock currently finishes the game in its use. It doesn't set up a lethal turn- it outright battlecries the damage where the damage needs to go thanks to doubling up on Lifedrinkers. It creates a one mana option at the very least that either finishes the job or stabilizes without fault in some cases just like Zul'Jin. The best hunter spell is a 3 mana removal and even that is random effect. Unleash for 6 is piss poor as a rushing 5/5 is usually not the most efficient answer when needed. It lives with 2-3 health on average and is easily answered the next turn. At worst, it hits divine shield as your only mechanic to open the window for a decent trade. I don't think Zul'Jin now, or ever, needs to be changed or nerfed. Hunter is right where it needs to be, and if the meta wanted to counter it then it would die off like any other deck. All of you love Mage and Warrior so face the consequence of the answer.

Buff Control Warrior.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Cyclone mage for a more aggressive gameplan. Maybe Big Spell Mage for a control gameplan. In BSM there may be some validity to keeping Pocket Galaxy but it is a longshot.

Counterspell has never been a problem. This post needs a mod visit...

For years the players have encouraged each other to wait until a rotation's nerf round to craft decks. It is a general practice to save your dust until the nerfs are announced and then build from there. It is also suggested that if you love a class you play the most budget friendly deck that class offers. There are a pretty relative amount of decent quest decks that are cheap right now. The only defense I have for new players and, cough cough, ignorant players is the rotation/nerfing of classic and basic. THAT is true bs on Blizzard's front. We need access to strong cards that will be relevant for the life of the game of a starting set. 

I tell you what, OP, you do the following for me:

Name the problematic Hunter cards in your opinion, offer and discuss adjustments that make sense, and compare information with the other users on this site. If you want things done, then offer solutions, if you want people talking, then create meaningful discussion. Otherwise, keep jamming a Hunter counter and don't waste a thread.

I will start positively by saying if you reverted a buff then its a "net-neutral" nerf. Also, deciding to answer a mana cheat interaction is commendable because mana cheat cards always feel really bad on the other side of the board. So "technically" two cards were nerfed and that tells me the meta is pretty decent.

Now. Doctor Boom at 9 mana. This did nothing for Control Warrior. A control deck that works this well doesn't necessarily worry about WHEN they play their value bomb. Aggro isn't going to cut it against warrior. The Restless Mummy is by far the reason Warrior's numbers won't change to aggression. You pretty consistently get it or even two of them by 4. Dealing 3 to two minions with one minion in a single card is very very powerful. Board clears for Warrior are very very powerful. Their defensive curve...is very very powerful. As I have said elsewhere: "Dr. Boom didn't stop aggro. It was a nail in the coffin if played on 7...not the entire reason the Warrior took the game". We may have situations where aggro gets there now, but it won't be common. I just don't understand this nerf because the real problem is the double value with board control mechs.

Conjurer's Calling at 4 is barely a difference. If you got an early Mountain Giant you couldn't immediately follow-up with CC anyway until the next turn. It will still have scenarios where it is casted earlier than reasonable. I don't really see this nerf doing too much.

So overall, you reverted two cards (Extra Arms being a bit of a screw you to Priest tbh), and did a weak nerf on two others. I really would have preferred an answer to Prismatic Lens, since you took a stance on mana cheat with Pocket Galaxy, but a turn 4 or 5 rush of a board of murlocs is ok I guess. Happy the meta didn't need to much adjusting in Blizzard's eyes, not necessarily pumped in 3/4 of the decisions.

This isn't Standard. Edit your thread please.

Something tells me that the next expansion features more mid-range tempo for them that made a 2 mana extra arms a nightmare situation for other decks. I don't think this was a reactive nerf, but a proactive one. I completely agree that Extra Arms wasn't really a problem.

They nerfed one of two hard counters to Warrior and barely touched Warrior. Warrior is still as strong and maybe even slightly stronger now that it doesn't worry about Mage as much. Aggro never lost to Dr. Boom. Doctor Boom on 7 was a nail in the coffin not a game-changer. They still clear boards, they still draw early answers to aggression, they still try to tempo the board early in the game to stop flood decks (paladin, shaman, etc.). This is going to be the overestimation of a lifetime, partly why I was excited to log onto Hearthpwn. I knew all you people would cry for joy over a card getting a mana change before you realized it didn't matter.

So Control Warrior is no where near dead. Matchups that did well against it will perform slightly better. Matchups that did poorly have MAYBE a chance. Otherwise to address your murloc question: I don't lose to Murloc Paladin as Highlander Hunter. I took out the tutor cards (elemental draw, mech draw, etc.) because their winrate for playing is relatively low. They don't necessarily do anything for the turn, just the game, which is terrible tempo. I put in classic Hyena, Springpaw, and more aggression. I hard mulligan for a usual hunter early game: Secretkeeper, Springpaw, Hyena, and Unleash the hounds. It is usually a win unless they Power curve in the first few turns and I draw poorly.

I think this nerf just buffed Highlander Hunter into the absolute unit that Hunter was with Deathstalker Rexxar.

4 Zilliax in one game. Warrior is a problem. We can't think this is healthy...

Murloc Holmes has a great design. The tokens it spawns are flavorful and quite strong. This is mitigated by the upfront cost for the stats. Overall, this is an amazing card. I really really liked RR as well. It would be very powerful to consistently finish the quest without coin on turn 3 for Rogue currently. 

Play Quest Rogue, a list I have been using (similar to Kibler's) just demolishes Mages and Warriors and that will be a good third or half of what you see on the 10ish and under rank. It is also situationally good against aggro, depending on if you either complete the quest early enough or get your rush minions online fast.

To answer your question: No. The speed it takes to rank up has not changed. I similarly struggled a few months ago to climb, but this was because I wasn't grinding Hearthstone anymore at that point. I too could pretty easily "camp" at rank 5 to collect my rewards since legend had already been accomplished. The more you play the more comfortable you are with the meta. Think about this the next time you play a match. Do you know what a classes usual turn 1-5 is? When you play a lot you do. When you don't play as often you don't. The biggest difference in being able to climb fast is knowing what to expect and playing accordingly.