Hearthpwn

Quote from Mitlar >>

Mindrender Illucia. 

This card is too op at 2 mana . Some pros are complaining about it. Might not get nerfed now but maybe in the future.

 Are you kidding, or is this just another part of your little "I hate priest" rant? Mindrender is a highly situational card that is anything but OP. In many cases, it's a dead card in your hand. Not sure which pros are complaining about it, but they're dead wrong.

Quote from SummerWalker >>

Quote from TallStranger >>

Quote from 1xbenx1 >>

Quote from TallStranger >>

I'm actually surprised that I don't see more Cult Neophyte being played. It's got standard 2 mana stats (3/2), but basically wrecks librams, Lightning Bloom, and Innervate, and makes it useless to play Kael that turn. And you can put two of them in your deck.

 Because you can't complain about "no counterplay" when you are actually playing the counterplay cards.

 You're not implying that people here at Hearthpwn would rather complain about "broken" decks than actually counter them, are you? Where's the fun in that?

 Again there was no counter play. he drew everything he needed by turn 6 none of those cards could counter it was a fking moonfire otk

 Actually, Cult Neophyte probably would have prevented your turn 6 OTK: your opponent could not have played any 0 cost spells like moonfire (at least not for free) that turn.

That said, of course, you'd have died the next turn. He got an insane draw, arguably the best possible one. And the odds of getting that draw are tiny. I get it: it sucks. But again, if you were playing a control deck, you were highly likely to lose to a combo deck anyway.

I've been using her in an aggro priest deck, and my usual approach is to empty my hand, then play her and and leave my opponent with nothing to play next turn.

But I agree: need to be very careful with her. If you get to burn 6 mana worth of your opponent's cards, he gets to burn 8 mana worth of yours on his turn.

Quote from KingCarnage >>

Quote from 1xbenx1 >>

Quote from TallStranger >>

I'm actually surprised that I don't see more Cult Neophyte being played. It's got standard 2 mana stats (3/2), but basically wrecks librams, Lightning Bloom, and Innervate, and makes it useless to play Kael that turn. And you can put two of them in your deck.

 Because you can't complain about "no counterplay" when you are actually playing the counterplay cards.

 Comments like this are so brainddead.

1) its 2/30 cards

2) It's a BC, not onboard effect. That means it only stalls one turn.

3)For clarity, I have literally played that card twice in a row into an albatross only to have them POPoff on what should be a turn 4. 

It's like youre trying be an asshole and trash people that dont like obviously obnoxious unfair advantages but don't even understand what the counters are and how effective they can be yourself. Bet you thought you being sarcastic and cool. You weren't. Keep it positive or just don't post when you dont have an actual solution.

 Wow, nice arrogant attitude. Maybe, just maybe, other people DON'T think it's as big a deal as all the nonstop whiners do. It's called a difference of opinion, and believe it or not, he and I are entitled to express it, whether you agree with it or not. Of course it's a onetime effect: it's a tech card. If it were a permanent effect, it would be the most broken card in HS history. But it does buy you an additional turn to finish off your opponent. You seem to think tech cards should give you an autowin against your opponent. They almost never do. Dirty Rat can pull the wrong card. That doesn't mean it's not a great option against combo decks. It just means it's not perfect.

You want to beat Druid?

1) Play an aggro deck with a couple of neophytes: should boost your winrate substantially.

2) Play a heavy control deck (control Priest appears to be very effective against Druid).

But you don't want to do that: you just want to complain so that Blizzard does your work for you. I've said a dozen times: it's too early to know whether or how to nerf this deck. In all likelihood, it's Kael that will need to be nerfed (again). Not that it matters: people will just find a new "broken" deck to whine about.

Quote from Warnerve75 >>

hearthstone is a game of answers...if your opponent doesn't have the answer he loses. its a 30 card game with 2 card duplicates so you really have a 15 card game. Skill in this game is simple memory of the cards and what can be played to answer your board state. If memorizing cards is a skill so is wiping my a$$ without getting $hit on my hand

skill is dropping a target at 100 yards while it's running using a lever-action 30-30 with a boresight. 

skill in hearthstone is a tad above rolling dice...

stop fooling yourself into thinking you need more than 3 brain cells to be good at this game and stop trying to validate your genius by being good at it because all you accomplish is making yourself look like a fool.

 Sure, all those pros with high winrates? Just lucky. It's not that they're thinking 5 turns ahead and setting up their win condition. Nope, they just get luckier than the average player. (Probably because Blizzard is paying them to promote the game.)

I'm sure that, if you had a chance to play a Grandmaster, you'd win 50% of the time. kappa

Quote from Unhappytimes >>

Dismissing legit concerns of turn 6 otk is bad for the game and the community. There typically isn't counterplay that early and I've also run into it. A tech card like cult neophyte doesn't really help in situations like, only possibly delays the combo until 7 which is still absurd. Be constructive.

 I am being constructive. Unfortunately, your definition of "constructive" seems to be "Blizzard, nerf the decks I don't like."

There is no fundamental difference (except for "my feelings") between losing at turn 6 to a OTK, or losing at turn 6 to an aggro deck. In my aggro priest deck, I can have a 6/11 taunt with lifesteal on turn 3. I can have 2 5/10 taunts on turn 4.  I pretty routinely win (or have the game well in hand) by turn 6. Should we nerf that too, because it makes people feel sad? (As an aside, I generally don't play aggro decks, but because of all the druids being played right now and because I like to actually win, I'm playing aggro. If only others would actually adjust for the decks they're facing rather than complaining incessantly.)

Fact #1: Combo decks are vulnerable to aggro, and are entirely reliant on cheap spells. Fact #2: Neophyte absolutely closes those combos down.

Now, of course it only lasts one turn. But, quite frankly, that one turn may be all I need to finish off my opponent. It won't help you if you are playing a slow, control deck (like the one the OP created and which I love), but then as a slow control deck, you're highly likely to lose to a combo deck anyway.

TLDR: If you're playing a control deck, there's no reason to complain about losing to a combo deck. If you're playing an aggro deck and you're not using neophyte, you have no grounds for complaining about losing to druids (or librams).

Quote from 1xbenx1 >>

Quote from TallStranger >>

I'm actually surprised that I don't see more Cult Neophyte being played. It's got standard 2 mana stats (3/2), but basically wrecks librams, Lightning Bloom, and Innervate, and makes it useless to play Kael that turn. And you can put two of them in your deck.

 Because you can't complain about "no counterplay" when you are actually playing the counterplay cards.

 You're not implying that people here at Hearthpwn would rather complain about "broken" decks than actually counter them, are you? Where's the fun in that?

I'm actually surprised that I don't see more Cult Neophyte being played. It's got standard 2 mana stats (3/2), but basically wrecks librams, Lightning Bloom, and Innervate, and makes it useless to play Kael that turn. And you can put two of them in your deck.

Quote from OoZuNoO >>

Quote from RendInFriend >>

The definition people are using is wrong. There is a reason things have definitions. Linguini is like spaghetti, but it’s incorrect to call linguini spaghetti. Mana cheating has been a concept in TCGs before hearthstone ever existed. It is playing a card for little or no cost before you could pay for it. It’s playing SotF for free six turns early. It’s using elvish piper to play an eldrazi turn 5. 

As for GA, 14 mana (best case scenario) for 7 is extremely valuable and a bit overpowered. It’s not mana cheating. Playing it for free on turn 4-5 is. Also, you know what really screws up that strategy? Making them draw one cost beasts. Now if only there was a card that would put two 1/1 beasts in the opponent’s deck...

 By that definition any card played using innervate/lightning bloom was mana cheated, doesnt have to cost 0.. Commencement pays 7 mana to play a more expensive minion + taunt/DS + 01 card draw, it only discounts around 6 mana but its certainly mana cheating. Its not something cut and dry, theres room for interpretation here I think.   

I dont think anyone would be complaining about GA if Albatross was a good tech option bro, just saying LOL

 It is a good tech option: just not one people are willing to use. Because people would rather demand Blizzard "fix it" (which just means, "make my favorite deck better")  then do the hard work of fixing their own decks. I just played a variant of this Druid deck and got utterly wrecked by a control Priest. The meta adjusts: people just need to give it time.

Quote from P4dge >>

People's issue is less that a deck cannot be beaten, its a deck that can't be beaten with what they WANT to play with. So many people just want the game to cater them as an individual. 

Weird because they seem to be the same people who cry about early streaming because it 'ruins the experimenting phase', which is exactly what this is. Some busted things pop out and people then start to counter them. Things are going to seem way, way over powered when you have no idea what to expect or play around. Once those beasts start coming down regularly people will start to tech against it to counter it. If a couple of weeks go by and there's no counter in sight then that's when nerfs should be considered.

I seem to recall bomb warrior starting off by smashing so many things and then fairly quickly fading away. I coukd be wrong but I can't really be bothered to really go through the examples because these people don't want to be reasoned with, they just want to have their cry and be validated by Internet strangers. 

 Agreed. The deck IS beatable, but not by every deck. That's always been the case in HS.

Quote from Tyk3 >>

 

If you want to keep exchanging insults, trust me, I'm better at it than you.

 No you're not.

 Am too. (Given the fact that you're crying like a baby, I thought this response would make you feel right at home.)

Let me know when you actually want to discuss facts. Otherwise, you're not worth my time. Now go tell your mommy on me.

Quote from RendInFriend >>

The definition people are using is wrong. There is a reason things have definitions. Linguini is like spaghetti, but it’s incorrect to call linguini spaghetti. Mana cheating has been a concept in TCGs before hearthstone ever existed. It is playing a card for little or no cost before you could pay for it. It’s playing SotF for free six turns early. It’s using elvish piper to play an eldrazi turn 5. 

As for GA, 14 mana (best case scenario) for 7 is extremely valuable and a bit overpowered. It’s not mana cheating. Playing it for free on turn 4-5 is. Also, you know what really screws up that strategy? Making them draw one cost beasts. Now if only there was a card that would put two 1/1 beasts in the opponent’s deck...

 Stop, you're making sense. Didn't you know that this is a "Boo hoo, I'm losing to a deck I don't like. Nerf it!" thread?

Quote from Filipter33 >>

Quote from TallStranger >>

Quote from OoZuNoO >>

The problem is not the mana cheating, its the lack of SETUP: all you need is to play Guardian Animals once and you win, everything after that is pure auto-pilot. I dont mind a deck having powerful tempo swings/mana cheating as long as it takes thought to play.. this druid deck is more brain dead than aggro lol, its impossible to make a mistake.

I do believe Kael should have a once per turn clause though, allowing its effect to activate multiple times is just asking for trouble..

 That's just not true. Period. Guardian Animals played early is very powerful. Played on curve, it's good, depending on what beasts get summoned. Played late it is entirely manageable. Again, the problem is Kael.

 NO. The problem is when a deck with tons of ramping can recover the tempo lost and refill the hand in just one turn as we saw in KotFT with ultimate infestation, when druid was 60% of the ladder. The deck does not need Kaelthas to stomp you on turn 3-4.

 You're missing my point: he said "all you need to do is play GA once and you win." That's absolutely 100% wrong. Again, played early it is game-ending (or nearly so). Played anywhere between turn 6 and 8 or 9 is tough to respond to, but recoverable. After turn 9, if you can't deal with 2 5 mana beasts (especially against a deck with very limited remove), you deserve to lose. Period. It's only Kael that lets you rush out 2 buffed beasts crazy early.

Quote from OoZuNoO >>

The problem is not the mana cheating, its the lack of SETUP: all you need is to play Guardian Animals once and you win, everything after that is pure auto-pilot. I dont mind a deck having powerful tempo swings/mana cheating as long as it takes thought to play.. this druid deck is more brain dead than aggro lol, its impossible to make a mistake.

I do believe Kael should have a once per turn clause though, allowing its effect to activate multiple times is just asking for trouble..

 That's just not true. Period. Guardian Animals played early is very powerful. Played on curve, it's good, depending on what beasts get summoned. Played late it is entirely manageable. Again, the problem is Kael.