Hearthpwn

I just know a lot of similar complaints were being voiced as I repeatedly climbed to high legend with Silas/Ashtongue Warrior, which, while technically being a combo deck, is one of the most controllish possible combos the game has ever seen.

Lately, I'm starting to suspect my continued enjoyment of Hearthstone has a lot to do with my OTHER multiplayer game of choice.  I strongly recommend Hearthstone players to take up chess for an interesting comparison.  Whenever RNG starts to get annoying, drop back to the game with dead zero randomness, and Hearthstone gets refreshed a bit . . . at least for me.

Agreed completely.  There are definitely some balance changes to be made, but that is pretty much a constant.  Folks would do well to remember, that there will literally always be cards and decks outperforming a majority of others, and banning those cards just elevates the next best cards to "broken" status.

I'll never forget the time someone seriously advocated for a nerf to chillwind yeti.  He wrote this whole diatribe about how Innervate plus the four cost was horribly broken, and how the druid hero power added the extra point to get past Sen'jin Shieldmaster while still having a living yeti, at which point the game was essentially over.

Inevitably, there will be tweeks to rogue and mage, possibly hunter as well though I'm not convinced there yet.  While we wait, this is a meta where at least seven decks have a serious chance at high legend.  There have been far worse lacks of deck diversity in the past.

Quote from Phoesias >>

Burn Mage is like your Dead Turn 7/8

Absolutely unstoppable, Draw 6 Cards for 2 Mana, Cost reduction, Face Damage as fuck, 2 Mana Deal 7 Damage. Deck cycle like Jesus

I mean, Shadow Priest is just A F*CKING JOKE, 2 mana Deal 2 Damage Face.  OK Blizzard.

 

There are several decks that require horribly bad draws to allow their opponent to survive till turn 8.  Not that worried about Mage.

With all due respect, you guys haven't met the real power players of this set if you're thinking Warlock is the issue here.

There are rogue decks popping off turn 6, and the only thing Warlock can do against them is help get to the next game faster by reducing the amount of damage needed for rogue to kill them.

The hunter decks and mage decks are still far off fully optimized and they're still racing down warlock easily.

If you're not playing the version with the voidwalker generation, even druid (if correctly played) can blitz out a 16 damage attack at the wrong moment and mow you down.

Warlock isn't the worst deck out there, but it's far from the most powerful also.  It looks as though Warlock will continue to occupy the perceived position of control strangler, though in the past, that position was more imaginary than real.

You mean the high damage option is running rampant on day one against grossly untuned or outright meming decks before any meta has been established?

It's almost as if this hasn't been the case every single launch day since 2014.

I can't even begin to imagine how any of the mage or hunter decks would ever drop a game to quest warlock.

I have taken plenty of games off of it with warrior and paladin today.  The only thing it seemed to do very well against was Quest Druid and the non-Quest Hand Locks.

Just started playing Priest and beat it twice with the Alura version of Quest Priest as well.

Regardless of how you feel about the practice, it's obvious they like the numbers they're seeing, otherwise they wouldn't continue the practice.

Personally, I've never seen the confused prenetdecking period last more than a few hours before most of the upper ranks are settling in.  Sometimes, a few versions of a deck persist in an unrefined form for a couple of days, but the genres are generally ironed out very quickly.

I remember the cumbersome and grossly inefficient 1.0 version of the Shudderwock combo was amusing.  Also, the Witching Hour / Hadronox deck that for some strange reason included Grizzlies to dilute the beast pool for Witching Hour persisted almost a week.  But these are exceptions.

I pick any one of the horrible things that have happened in life, reflect on it for a second, and realize I'm playing a computer game while sitting in a house I own near a refrigerator full of food and drink, and there's a locked door and security system between me and the many many real problems and predators in the world.

wild growth into thresher plus broomstick is about the only path I've seen.

Holy Hell!  3 days after his heroic stance against injustice, Trump is back at it playtesting.

Unbelievable.  No . . . wait . . . very, very believable.

I mean, I do want several heads from the higher ups on a platter . . . just not for this stuff.  For the conclusively proven other stuff that no one bothered to protest or delay roll outs for.

Layton, the issue is not the current event.  The issue (at least or me) is curiosity as to why THIS current event is worth delays and boycotts when all the rest apparently weren't.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't the one going off about dopamine doses, but the horrific nature of the events in question doesn't suddenly recharge a person's moral credibility when they have shown themselves completely morally bankrupt in the past.

Personally I think the saddest part is that if the woman had just trusted the courts, she'd have retired extremely wealthy.

All you'd need is one witness to corroborate stuff like the nude picture supposedly passed around a party by employees including her direct superior.  The fastest sexual harassment lawsuit on record follows quickly.

I would have funded that case out of my own pocket.

It's worth mentioning Bloodmoth is 100% correct, although that doesn't really advance the discussion at all.  It's never a defense to a particular crime or moral failing to say "lots of other people do it too", and lack of pursuing other injustices doesn't answer pursuit of a particular injustice.

Also, I woke up this morning to Jim Sterling's usual monday rant video, and I knew it would be on this subject.  Have to hand it to ole' Jim, he frequently exaggerates, he never gives credit to innocent till proven guilty, and he only really gets up at arms if a woman or POC is involved . . . but he's nothing if not consistent.  And you can't take away that from him.

No, we are the ones who indicate via vote how we want the police to police.

If one is inclined to laugh at that premise based on certain recent events in America, rather than calling an obvious truth a lie, consider what those events indicate the populace is willing to accept as normal operation for law enforcement.