• 1

    posted a message on How to counter secret paladin?

    Tempo Mage is pretty good against them because Mana Wyrm and Flamewaker are really good against them and if they don't have board control the deck isn't that good. Playing a single Polymorph is really useful too, against the midrange variants.

    Druid is pretty strong too. The traditional Midrange Druid is not great against it, but aggro, token, and ramp varieties can be pretty good. Rogue is great against them since the tempo plays are super good against them, but you'll probably lose to every other deck so maybe not that one. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Control Druid
    Quote from exacerberus >>

    No problems, that's what forums are for. Have fun playing the game.

    Now there's a novel concept XD. 

     

    Posted in: Druid
  • 0

    posted a message on Can we get some clearer rules and language, Blizzard?
    Quote from ScaryKoolaid >>
    Quote from Mister_Smith >>

    Why do SOME battlecries or deathrattles trigger with priority over other effects while others pass priority? That's not consistent at all. Why does an effect like Emperor Cobra that only triggers on damage as stated not kill a minion withDivine Shield but Blizzard will freeze them (or will freeze minions that weren't even in play when Blizzard was cast) though both cards imply the trigger is tied to damage or happens at least simultaneous to damage? These are inconsistencies plain and simple.

    We certainly will not get on the same page in this discussion basically because we have a different understanding of how "resolve" should work in Hearthstone but i will glady answer those questions. 

    Emperor Cobra does not kill a minion with divine shield because no damage was dealt. If no damage was dealt nothing is destroyed. It's a simple case of the effect not triggering because it's condition was not met. 

    Blizzard simply has two stages which resolve seperately. First it deals 2 damage to all enemy minions. That damage resolves and effects that are potentially in play may trigger after it. Then the second part, the freeze comes into effect and resolves. It's again Hearthstones version of the stack. Damage resolves -> Effects resolve (i.e. Imp Gang Boss)  -> Freeze resolves.

    But you can't simply say "well that card has two stages because I know it does" when the card itself does not imply it has two separate stages but actually reads as one effect. That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Your argument is "Well I know from experience how certain cards work" but that's not how rules are supposed to work. The way Blizzard reads specifically states Deal 2 damage to all enemy minions and freeze THEM. That language specifically means the minions that are being hit by the 2 damage are the ones getting frozen. I can agree Divine Shield is less of an appropriate example as you can read Blizzard as being applied regardless of whether the 2 damage lands or not, but there's no logical reason your mech's pilot should get frozen when Blizzard kills it as worded. That's simple English.

    Why does a card like Earth Shock need the specific qualifier "then" if cards like Blizzard imply it? It's inconsistent. Blizzard should read "Deal 2 damage to all enemy minions, then freeze all enemy minions." but they got sloppy with taking a language short cut and put two separate and distinct effects in one continuous rule line.

    I always assumed that the "them" in Blizzard referred to the "enemy minions" part, since "them" is a pronoun that refers back to the last named or otherwise indicated participants in the sentence. In this case, the only named participants are the "enemy minions" so it makes sense that anything that falls under that category is frozen. If it said "Deal two damage to all enemy minions and freeze any minion that took damage this way." then I could understand the confusion, but as English works "them just refers to enemy minions.

    That said, it does feel counter intuitive since it seems like only minions actually hit by the blizzard should be frozen, but the wording makes sense. It could be clearer, but it makes sense.  

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Control Druid
    Quote from BrangDang >>
    Quote from Timeiscandy >>

    If you've been playing for a few weeks and you want to play a control deck, your choices are likely to be constricted by your collection. What legendaries and Druid epics do you have access to? 

    kinda scarce on both ends right now. I reckon I should perhaps look into building something else? 

    Maybe. Druid is the cheapest of the control decks that can be built. If you want to work towards it, Ancient of Lore is the first thing you're going to want to work towards. Do you have the adventures?

    Posted in: Druid
  • 0

    posted a message on How well do people play around the Paladin secrets?

    So whenever I start seeing a deck a lot on the ladder I like to play some variations of it to get a good feel for the deck and see if I can understand how it works. With the rise of Secret Paladin I figured I should play some games with it. Last season I was still stubbornly grinding Control Warrior wins, but I was seeing the deck often enough that it seemed like it would be worth trying to get a handle on it. 

    In playing I've noticed that there are a lot of situations where I win off the back of my opponent making awkward plays around my secrets, whether they come from MC or just from hand. I've been in the situation many times where I think "Well, if they do this right I just lose." and then they don't and it goes very well for me. 

    I'm making no comment here on whether this deck is OP or brainless or anything like that. I'm mostly interested in hearing from other people that have picked up the deck. Does it seem like people make the appropriate plays around the secrets? Do they consistently mess up? I'm curious, as it feels like my winrate with the deck would drop drastically if the majority of players had a better feel for the secrets, but I'd like to hear how other people feel from their own experiences. 

    Posted in: Paladin
  • 0

    posted a message on Control Druid

    If you've been playing for a few weeks and you want to play a control deck, your choices are likely to be constricted by your collection. What legendaries and Druid epics do you have access to? 

    Posted in: Druid
  • 0

    posted a message on Slam and Bash replacing Acolytes and Taskmasters in CW?

    The change seems focused on increasing survivability in a meta where you can't rely on your Taskmasters killing anything or your Acolytes drawing more than one card. The increased popularity of Priest with double Cabal may also play a factor, though that's probably a minor concern all things considered. It's certainly an interesting change, and I'll be curious to see if it becomes the standard. 

    Posted in: Warrior
  • 0

    posted a message on Does Ben Brode know what he's doing?
    Quote from thepoxbox >>
    Quote from Timeiscandy >>

    The only time WotC has made changes quickly are when they've made incredibly spectacular failures, such as in Urza block or with Affinity. Those changes had to happen immediately because the percentage of people playing with the cards was insane. Like 70%+ of tournament attendees insane (you could make the same argument for some decks in Hearthstone tournaments but it's a little different since MtG tournaments only allow you one deck). The most recent example of emergency bannings were with Jace the Mind Sculptor and Stoneforge Mystic and those had both been around for a year already at that point. The deck they were broken in existed for about 4 months before they were banned anyway, so it wasn't like it was a super fast response.

    The argument that because this is an online CCG they should make changes more often and more quickly has never made that much sense to me. The more often they make changes the more often people will expect them to make changes in the future. Every time any deck or card becomes good everyone will just scream for a nerf. I mean, they do that now, but it would likely get much worse since people would actually expect it to happen whereas now people don't really expect fast nerfs. 

    Hearthstone is just 2 years old, it took MTG like.. what..10 years to stop screwing up?
    So. Yeah. 

    Also you don't understand the argument that you can make changes online? What? If you ban a card in MTG it's value suddenly drops from 30$ to 5$. You just cost your players potentially hundreds of dollars and royally pissed them off. 

    I don't see the slow nerf plan working in curbing complaints. Yes likely there will always be about the same number of complaints no matter what. 
    So then we just get faster meta shifts, which, for an online game, is just awesome. No money has to be spent by the player base and no new cards have to come out and the meta changes potentially significantly? Sweet deal for everyone. 

    Well MtG is over twenty years old now and they're still messing up so I dunno how long it's supposed to take to learn the balance lesson but I imagine it's an ongoing process. I'm not saying that the Hearthstone team necessarily does a better job with balance, though given the game mechanics it's hard to make interactions as broken as some of the things you can do in MtG.

    That part I understand. What I don't understand is why everyone thinks that just because they can make changes quickly they should. Like, I understand that people want to see the cards they don't like playing against go away, but if you don't establish some threshold for how broken something has to be to get a change then everyone is just going to expect you to make changes all the time. Like I said, right now people whine about cards but they don't really expect Blizzard to do much about it. If they made changes all the time then people would have a legitimate reason to think that their complaints would be heard. Obviously we can't actually test this so either of us could be right, but my expectation would be that the more Blizzard actually makes changes the more people will expect and ask for them. 

    I mean, yeah it's not bad in a world where everyone has all the cards and can constantly jump to a different deck depending on the meta, but I'm pretty sure that's not this world. To go back to the MtG example you used, it's one of the reasons WotC doesn't like to make bans. You devalue someone's collection and disincentivize them from putting time or money into the game to build a good deck. If it's going to change at any minute, why bother? Hearthstone cards might not have the same monetary value as MtG cards, but for a lot of players the time that went into getting a certain deck is a real cost. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Does Ben Brode know what he's doing?
    Quote from Ace1a >>
    Quote from Timeiscandy >>
    Quote from Ace1a >>
    Calm down and stop defending this broken deck. You hated that deck a month ago so be glad it's going bye. No, dragon priest still lost 70% of the time to it. Only handlock and control Warrior managed to lose slightly less than 50% of the time. I agree divine favor is OP and unfairly punishes slower decks. MC is OP but blizzard is working on a proper counter to secrets, perhaps a minion with flare battlecry? Boom hopefully is next to be nerfed as he restricts design space. Tirion is also OP, but weak to silence. I lost more games to Patron than any other class so there.
     

    I'm not sure I understand how Dr. Boom restricts design space. Would you care to clarify?

    Post in the Boom thread and ill explain more. But the comparison between OP cards remains valid, they all restrict design space by keeping the meta stale and preventing other cards from seeing play.

    Eeeeeeh not sure I'm interested enough in hearing your explanation to go find another thread. I feel like we have different definitions of what design space means so it wouldn't likely be a productive conversation anyway. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Does Ben Brode know what he's doing?
    Quote from thepoxbox >>
    Quote from Timeiscandy >>

    Well if we're taking all our cues from WotC then you're going to have to wait a long time for some nerfs. Like, years. Also the only format they consistently ban stuff in is Modern, and a lot of people really don't like the approach they're taking with that format. If Patron had been a thing in MTG, it probably would have taken years to see a ban. Many of the cards that were more broken and dominant in Modern were around a lot longer than Patron was in Hearthstone. 

    They used to ban cards within a month. 
    I remember Urza's Saga lol. What a monumental screw up, which they fixed real fast. They didn't wait 6 months like idiots, they knew they had failed. 
    They are much better now at balancing, which is why they more rarely restrict or ban anything.
    They also unban / unrestrict cards sometimes.

    They're a paper game too so they have an excuse for not doing this whereas blizzard really has none. They're really just clinging desperately to this idea that the players will always find some kind of magical answer, and they "help them along" with failures like Lil Exorcist. Just boggles the mind. What were they thinking with that card? Is it just a flavorful card or was it a serious attempt at balancing the game without nerfs?

    The only time WotC has made changes quickly are when they've made incredibly spectacular failures, such as in Urza block or with Affinity. Those changes had to happen immediately because the percentage of people playing with the cards was insane. Like 70%+ of tournament attendees insane (you could make the same argument for some decks in Hearthstone tournaments but it's a little different since MtG tournaments only allow you one deck). The most recent example of emergency bannings were with Jace the Mind Sculptor and Stoneforge Mystic and those had both been around for a year already at that point. The deck they were broken in existed for about 4 months before they were banned anyway, so it wasn't like it was a super fast response.

    The argument that because this is an online CCG they should make changes more often and more quickly has never made that much sense to me. The more often they make changes the more often people will expect them to make changes in the future. Every time any deck or card becomes good everyone will just scream for a nerf. I mean, they do that now, but it would likely get much worse since people would actually expect it to happen whereas now people don't really expect fast nerfs. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Changing the Hunter Class and Direct Damage/Charge

    They are extremely unlikely to ever change the hero powers, since doing so would require a great deal more balancing. The hero power you've created seems like it would lead to way more complaining than the current one does since people already whine about RNG, and giving Hunter a power that sometimes is the same as it is now and sometimes kills your minions doesn't seem like the way to go about it.

    The Sniper you have is pretty much exactly the same as it is now unless I'm missing something.

    As for Buzzard, I'm assuming you also wanted to change the mana cost back to 2. Still not sure anyone would play it as you've got it but maybe. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Does Ben Brode know what he's doing?
    Quote from Ace1a >>
    Calm down and stop defending this broken deck. You hated that deck a month ago so be glad it's going bye. No, dragon priest still lost 70% of the time to it. Only handlock and control Warrior managed to lose slightly less than 50% of the time. I agree divine favor is OP and unfairly punishes slower decks. MC is OP but blizzard is working on a proper counter to secrets, perhaps a minion with flare battlecry? Boom hopefully is next to be nerfed as he restricts design space. Tirion is also OP, but weak to silence. I lost more games to Patron than any other class so there.
     

    I'm not sure I understand how Dr. Boom restricts design space. Would you care to clarify?

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Does Ben Brode know what he's doing?
    Quote from thepoxbox >>
    Quote from Timeiscandy >>
    something Blizzard is willing to do often and quickly

    They could just do like MTG does and have a schedule for announcing nerfs. 
    Like 3 times a year or whatever, in-between releases. 

    That's clearly a way better approach than their current one.

    Well if we're taking all our cues from WotC then you're going to have to wait a long time for some nerfs. Like, years. Also the only format they consistently ban stuff in is Modern, and a lot of people really don't like the approach they're taking with that format. If Patron had been a thing in MTG, it probably would have taken years to see a ban. Many of the cards that were more broken and dominant in Modern were around a lot longer than Patron was in Hearthstone. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Does Ben Brode know what he's doing?
    Quote from thepoxbox >>

    Well the few times I've heard him speak, he seems to get some design ideas and a lot of things he says are true.
    There's also a lot of information he has access to that we don't.

    That said, I think it's clear that the metagame crystalizes way faster than they'd hoped and they need to stop waiting months and months for obvious nerfs. 

    I think they still believe that the metagame is ever in motion and that people would somehow have figured out a patron counter. That's just not how it works and we've seen that. People figure out the best decks REALLY FAST and you can have a pretty good idea of what to nerf within like a month of release. 
    So whatever criteria they are using to actually pull the trigger, they should just apply 1-2 months after a release and stop hoping that things will fix themselves, because they don't and won't.

    And side note, I'm fine with them killing decks or cards. The patron warrior playstyle is really crap for this game, I don't really want to see them attempt to make it "fair" over the course of 2-3 years, changing warsong, patron and frothing bit by bit until they're still used a lot, but not "unfair'. Just kill the deck and move on.

    I would disagree with that, for a few reasons. While I do think it becomes pretty clear what the best decks are pretty quickly, I would really hate for them to take the approach you suggest. I feel like it would discourage people from trying to solve the meta and instead would encourage them to simply find the best decks in the abstract, rather than the ones that are good against the other good decks. Good decks are found quickly, but the ones most suited to the meta take a little more time to evolve. Also, people wouldn't even try as hard to make the decks if as soon as something was obviously good they'd expect it to be nerfed. This might also discourage people from crafting certain cards if they thought a nerf was likely.

    I also get the feeling that the more nerfs they hand out the more people are going to complain. Obviously there will be people that complain about the nerfs themselves, but the real problem would be the same crowd of people that are always crying for nerfs. If they see it as something Blizzard is willing to do often and quickly, then they are just going to get more vocal and whiny, demanding faster and faster nerfs to more and more cards. That's not something I think Blizzard should really open themselves up to, so I'm fine with their current strategy even if it sometimes feels like it takes a while. Besides, in this case I almost never played against Patrons anyway so it didn't feel like it mattered all that much for the ladder. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Cruel Taskmaster vs. Hungry Crab wording
    Quote from marcellomu >>
    Quote from Ono_Palaver >>

    Damage WAS done. It was done to divine shield, it counts too.

     

    Quote from Havendes >>
    Quote from marcellomu >>

    I'm aware that I'm splitting hairs here, as card wording in Hearthstone is hardly consistent, but I did want to bring something up that kind of bothers me.

    Hungry Crab, when it has no Murloc to destroy, will not get the +2/+2, because it did not destroy an enemy Murloc.

    Cruel Taskmaster, which has the exact same wording, will still give a minion with divine shield +2 attack, even though the damage was prevented.

    Just an observation. I don't expect anything to be done about it, and we all know that HS doesn't put as much effort into making sure the technical wording of the cards is as consistent as, say, MTG does.

    The technical wording works perfectly. Cruel task master says "Deal 1 damage to a minion and give it 2 attack" If a minion has a divine shield and is targeted by cruel task master, first it checks that there is a legal target for the battlecry, then it deals 1 one damage to that minion, the divine shield reduces the damage to 0, and then the minion gains 2 attack. Every part of the battlecry resolves. It would resolve exactly the same in MTG. Hungry crab read "Destroy a murloc and gain +2/+2" It first checks if there is a legal target for the battlecry, if there isn't, then the ability doesn't resolve. However it should be noted that Hungry crab WOULD destroy a murloc even if it had divine shield. THis is because no damage is done, it is immediately removed from the battlefield. 

     

    Quote from Havendes >>
    Quote from Asuryan >>

    Does Mistress of Pain give you life when she hits a divine shield?

    No, how divine shield works is the next source of damage dealt to this creature will deal 0 damage. Mistress of Pain heals based on the damage she deals, thus when she hits a divine shield she heals for 0 damage.

    That's not the wording on divine shield, though. It says the next time the damage is dealt, ignore it. So is the damage dealt? It's definitely not reduced to zero. And I really don't think it would resolve the same in MTG. If, say, a card with lifelink were to attack Cho Manno or a card with protection for whatever reason, the lifelink wouldn't work. It seems like the wording suggests the damage is a prerequesite for the +2 attack- and the wording is exactly the same for Hungry Crab, yet it doesn't work the same way?

    It makes sense that you might have this confusion, but from a wording perspective it still makes sense. The damage is ignored and the shield goes away, but the +2 attack isn't related to the damage. You're making that connection on your own. It's basically an Elven Archer and an Abusive Sergeant. It does both of those things independent of each other. Although it doesn't seem to be stated explicitly anywhere, all aspects of a battlecry must resolve for any of them to. The damage resolves, it's just ignored, so the second part can happen too. In the case of Hungry Crab the first part doesn't happen since there isn't a target, so the second half doesn't happen either. 

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • To post a comment, please login or register a new account.