Hearthpwn

>:(

Edit: I want a rematch

Brewmaster instead of Arcane Golems? :P

Quote from 30phillosgamer >>

Quote from PetiteMouche >>

Because rogue has been the best class in the game for over 7 years now and doesn't need a buff.

As a Rogue in current meta you should get to fatigue before you run out of cards in your hand, there's something wrong with your deck if you need to pass a turn to activate some combo card, play more card draw !

I assume when you say "buy" you mean "draw". If not, I have no idea what you mean.

 Yea Rogue is the Best class xD With Lunacy Mage , paladin dominating this expansion... and Secret mage big priest jade druid in wild .. rogue has one aggro deck thats good KEKW

While I do play and enjoy Rogue a lot more than other classes, this response is extremely naive. Over the last 7 years, Rogue has been tier 1 a LOT more than other classes. Galakrond (nerfed), Kingsbane (nerfed), aggressive decks (Cold Blood+Leeroy nerfed), Mill (HOFed), Combos (nerfed). It's received more tweaks than any other class and is generally powerful. I wouldn't really rank Rogue as the best class overall (I don't think there is a best class), but comparing it currently to the power level of mage and paladin right now is very naive. Rogue is still tier 2 and its not even close to bad.

Thanks for the clear up on the quest :P Another question - is the deck worth running without one of the legendaries, and if so which one is more necessary? I know Sir Finley is the better in-general craft but Flurgl looks super fun and powerful, and I'm not sure.

Good explanation! One question though, been on my mind for a while - why no quest? Is it really slow or something?

Myra's Unstable Element
It's such a cool card, it's incredibly powerful and basically game-breaking as a base, but has a massive downside. Manipulating that downside is where it really excels, with things like shuffle effects, Mecha'thun, Chef Nomi, e.t.c.
I only wish it had a better chance at becoming genuinely viable in shuffle decks one day. :P Only time will tell.

I have silas and polymorph, what are some good replacements for the rest

This is really stupid of me, but, um, I really thought Jepetto ONLY drew legendaries to discount up until like a minute ago.

 Edit: Lol :D Changed the deck now.

I was about to reply to my other comment when I saw this. I agree with everything s1ayer said, I also wanted to add that Tickatus is kind of awkward to corrupt - not incredibly, but still a little.
You're right on Cascade having enough cards to corrupt, I completely forgot about C'thun's pieces :)
hcc, sorry if my comment was too forward or something. I wasn't trying to be hurtful. Sorry if it seemed that way.

:(

Archwitch Willow is really bad in this deck, 80% of the time it pulls really small demons with useful battlecries. Tickatus is malused, it's a good body but it's negative effect is pricey (and is difficult to corrupt here). Keli'dan is meh, C'thun has no synergy except Polkelt, very weak, and Cascading Disaster is difficult to corrupt because there aren't enough 5 and 6 cost cards.
I might be wrong on every single one of those points, but worth considering.

It's the Heart of Te Fiti.  Moana confirmed as a new character skin for Valeera.

I personally believe Firemancer Flurgl is core to the deck's identity and play. If, however, you must really cut it or just ditch it, you could maybe run Lushwater Murcenary in its place. Of course, this will be far less powerful.

Hope this helps somewhat.

I saw someone talk about broom only giving adjacent minions rush and I think that is the way I hope they go. 

Quote from SneakyRogue >>

 

Quote from Bloodmoth >>

Quote from SpaceTimeDream >>

Well, I played wild until I reached Platinum rank and from there forward all I see are 3 decks, Secret Mage, Zoo Self-Damage Warlock and Resurrect Big Priest.

All the cards in the world made available and people just netdeck and play 3 decks. Why people buy packs with real money for if they end up using a very small limited pool of them?

I realize that am probably exaggerating things but playing Wild just proved to be the same as Standard. People netdecking with no promise of experimenting and making their own homebrewed decks. I am curious what happens with the physical TCG, if they too experience netdecking

Rant over.

 Well, people suck the fun out of games because the vast vajority of them play only to win. 

Let me give you an equivalent: Back when we were kids, my friends and I used to play an amazing (for its time) soccer game on the SNES, Kick Off 3. It had an amazing depth of play, really complicated combinations, a cool dribbling system and challenging AI...

Until we found a glitch. You could press the high cross button from a specific area around the center of the field and it would fly straight to the goal, 100% score chance without fail. The game soon devolved to who can get to the center in the right location and abuse this more times within the match limit. I tried to impose a no-glitch rule but the other kids lost their interest in the game and eventually gravitated to other ones. Why? Because without it they had no chance of beating my best friend and me who played more hours and thus could play better.

It's the same reason why 90% of soccer fans are with the top teams. People don't like to lose even when they don't play themselves.

Physical TCG used to be way better than this, (bar magic, which was more "serious" and people had the same shitty philosophy). The reason was they were ridiculously expensive, especially when you were <18 years old. You could not collect everything nor predict the way the meta would evolve (and there were not a lot of  balance changes because it was difficult to do), so you usually picked a hero/faction/class or whatever the game had and you mained it. Everyone played different shit/what they liked, and it wasn't always competitive. In Hearthstone terms, everyone knew the others by deck, and few people had more than 3-4 real decks. You were the "Galvadon dude" or the "Barnabus main". In tournaments people from other areas would come and you could see in hearthstone terms matchups like Murlock Warlock VS spell damage Hunter. And guess what: It was awesome.

Nowadays, you only have 1 way out: To have a good amount of RL firends or internet friends decent enough to have an understanding amongst you and play a game the way you want to. Otherwise, all games devolve into maximum-efficiency play to win crap, no fun allowed, no experimentation, nothing. See what happened to Overwatch. That's why Blizzard try to make it into a PvE experience so that people can actually pick their playstyle and hero and still win.

This is a wonderful explanation. You're absolutely right, this is the genuine problem with Hearthstone. You're no longer playing to have fun, you're playing to win. You stick with whatever's best each season because you want to hit higher ranks, not because you like the deck.

Players want to get rewards from having fun, not from winning. It's interesting to notice how the most popular games ever - things like CounterStrike, Fortnite, Fall Guys, Among Us, Smash Bros, Minecraft, and MtG - ALL of them follow this principle.
The question is, could Hearthstone ever somehow lose this mentality? Because if it could, unfun-but-powerful decks would just die out because no one would want to play them. Ranked mode, the mode that pushes players to run those most-powerful decks, would need to change into something similar to above-mentioned MtG tournaments - not rewarding you for winning, but for interest, curiosity, and experimentation. The hearthstone meta would completely disappear.
I think its possible. And necessary.

 Just give everyone the monthly ranked rewards for playing 5 games each month and see what happens. Rankings would only matter in high-level Legend rank and you would only play ranked for maximum xp gain (which is time-based, and would be changed to not be win-based, so you don't need to play aggro nor care too much for your winrate). And that's it. But then, many people would lose motivation to play the mode, so that's a double-edged sword. And for the record, MtG tournaments are usually also an unfun top-tier show-off; that's always the case when rewards are involved. It really only is casual modes that are different.

I don't have high hopes for ladder to ever change into what you describe, but I would be happy to see this or more variety in general. My only reason to switch to non-tier decks is to finish achievements (so that's at least a tiny step in the right direction) or to play something completely weird for fun (Academic Espionage is still my favorite care in the game, drawing 1 mana DK Jaina is just too stupid), but I am no different in that I like winning.

Quote from SpaceTimeDream >>

Well, I played wild until I reached Platinum rank and from there forward all I see are 3 decks, Secret Mage, Zoo Self-Damage Warlock and Resurrect Big Priest.

All the cards in the world made available and people just netdeck and play 3 decks. Why people buy packs with real money for if they end up using a very small limited pool of them?

I realize that am probably exaggerating things but playing Wild just proved to be the same as Standard. People netdecking with no promise of experimenting and making their own homebrewed decks. I am curious what happens with the physical TCG, if they too experience netdecking

Rant over.

 Well, people suck the fun out of games because the vast vajority of them play only to win. 

Let me give you an equivalent: Back when we were kids, my friends and I used to play an amazing (for its time) soccer game on the SNES, Kick Off 3. It had an amazing depth of play, really complicated combinations, a cool dribbling system and challenging AI...

Until we found a glitch. You could press the high cross button from a specific area around the center of the field and it would fly straight to the goal, 100% score chance without fail. The game soon devolved to who can get to the center in the right location and abuse this more times within the match limit. I tried to impose a no-glitch rule but the other kids lost their interest in the game and eventually gravitated to other ones. Why? Because without it they had no chance of beating my best friend and me who played more hours and thus could play better.

It's the same reason why 90% of soccer fans are with the top teams. People don't like to lose even when they don't play themselves.

Physical TCG used to be way better than this, (bar magic, which was more "serious" and people had the same shitty philosophy). The reason was they were ridiculously expensive, especially when you were <18 years old. You could not collect everything nor predict the way the meta would evolve (and there were not a lot of  balance changes because it was difficult to do), so you usually picked a hero/faction/class or whatever the game had and you mained it. Everyone played different shit/what they liked, and it wasn't always competitive. In Hearthstone terms, everyone knew the others by deck, and few people had more than 3-4 real decks. You were the "Galvadon dude" or the "Barnabus main". In tournaments people from other areas would come and you could see in hearthstone terms matchups like Murlock Warlock VS spell damage Hunter. And guess what: It was awesome.

Nowadays, you only have 1 way out: To have a good amount of RL firends or internet friends decent enough to have an understanding amongst you and play a game the way you want to. Otherwise, all games devolve into maximum-efficiency play to win crap, no fun allowed, no experimentation, nothing. See what happened to Overwatch. That's why Blizzard try to make it into a PvE experience so that people can actually pick their playstyle and hero and still win.

Thanks for this budget deck i am f2p and this deck is just for me

who cares about winrate this looks fun people who cares about winrate ruin the game and call for nerfs too early this community is too immature