Hearthpwn

You weren't kidding about the Shaman thing, damn.

There's actually quite a bit of variety, depending on how you look at it. Like, there are quite a few viable archetypes right now, and within each of those archetypes there's quite a bit of variation. When I play against a deck, I can usually identify it within the first few turns, and I can say I probably could guess about 26 cards in their deck with some reliability. That's around 13% variation in established decks, and that's pretty good compared to other games. I played MTG for years and once a format was established the most variation you could expect would be a few cards here and there, maybe an extra land, and a slightly different side board plan.

I played against a Druid this morning that killed me with combo after playing two Ancients of War. I wasn't expecting it and I got punished. Is that a new deck? Not really. Is it different from cookie cutter combo decks? Certainly. There's variation within the decks that are established, and I think what tends to happen is people start with a netdeck, play it, then start tweaking it. This is less true for decks like Freeze Mage or Patron because those are well-oiled machines that need all their pieces but that doesn't seem too relevant to this discussion.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I would be curious to hear what kind of world you would like to live in. What would make the game feel like there was more creativity in it? I'm not trying to be contrary for the sake of it, I'm genuinely curious. 

Might just be learning to play against the new style of aggro decks too. Hunters have always been a bad matchup, and mages really depend on their draws. Paladins can actually be okay since even with Divine Favor drawing a ton they don't have much reach and it takes them a lot to get through your taunts. Your board clears are absurd against them too, which is nice. 

People are still playing Wrynn in CW? Huh. Well I haven't seen it in a while and when I've played it it's been pretty not great. Full disclosure I play a lot of CW so maybe my opinion isn't what you're looking for, but it's pretty easy to get out valued, killed fast, or out controlled in mirrors. I mean the deck is certainly good but I've never felt like I was doing something insane with it. But in the interest of actually reading your arguments I'll go through them one at a time. 

1. Wrynn certainly has the potential to be great, but I think he falls into the category of "Feels absurd when I lose to it" cards. A lot of games you get destroyed by aoe, or can't play it because of fatigue. Also, it costs ten so against any kind of aggression it's never doing anything. I'm not sure how busted a card can be when it's not good against aggro and half the time is bad against control. Really, it just feels like it makes the midrange druid and paladin matchups a bit better..

2. Justicar is a great card for CW, no denying that. I feel like it has a place, for sure, but I'm always kind of iffy on it. It's great in control matchups but against midrange and aggro it can be hard to find a time to play it. It'll trade for a two-drop so you're really just paying for the ability a lot of the time. It's good, to be sure, but sometimes I just wish it was a card that would do something to the board. It's not a "slam it asap" kind of card when you need to react. You have to find time to play it, otherwise you'll fall into a deficit you can't recover from.

3. Warrior has some of the best removal in the game, if you're willing to set it up. That's the general theme of Warrior as a class I feel; finding the best time to do something. Execute and Shield slam both require set up, and all the other effects have conditions attached too. Again, I have to stipulate that I think these cards are great, but I'm arguing against the deck and cards being broken, not against them being good in the first place. Warrior removal is like a better version of Priest removal. Needs to meet a condition in order to do anything. The conditions just tend to be easier for Warriors.

4. So the classes that seem to be doing pretty well against CW right now include: Paladin, Shaman, Midrange Hunter, Zoolock, Druid. Some Priest builds are good too, and Patron is another Warrior deck but usually works pretty well against them (though in both cases it's build dependent and probably closer to 50/50.

So I'd say I disagree, but I mean, if it feels busted to you just play a paladin and crap on them. 

#humblebrag

The question of whether or not the deck is overpowered is a tricky one, mostly because everyone is using different definitions of what that means. Personally, I don't think the deck is overpowered across a large number of games, as it takes a lot of skill to play consistently well and to see success with. That said, I do think it's a deck that shouldn't exist in its current form, because it goes against the stated goals of Blizzard's design team and what they want for this game. 

There are games where you can do everything right and still lose in the end by taking 50+ damage in a turn. I was watching a stream earlier today where the streamer lost to patron from 30 life and afterwards said "I made a mistake. I shouldn't have played a minion, that gave him lethal." This was with the streamer already having 0 minions on board. 

Putting players in a position where the act of doing something as central to the game as playing any minions, at all, can get them killed from full health, isn't in line with where the developers want the game to be, and as such I think it's worth looking at. It generally isn't a good idea to have something in the game that prevents people from playing the way the game tells them they should. The ultimate success of the deck isn't as relevant here as the unfairness of some of its capabilities. 

The reason most Zoo decks don't play the card (and you certainly can play it, it's not like it's bad) is because it doesn't mesh all that well with the general strategy of the deck, which is to pressure with efficient minions and keep the board as clear as possible. Shadowflame can help with keeping the board clear, no doubt, but the deck doesn't usually need a card like that to help do it. Usually, what Zoo does is try to put itself in a position where your hero power is going to let you play two minions a turn, and so it doesn't play cards that interfere with that plan. You make early trades, grind both players' resources, then just start tapping and playing dudes. 

The point of this game plan is you don't want to give your opponent a chance to recover, and that means you really need to be tapping and playing minions every turn, and drawing a Shadowflame can cause a hiccup in this plan, giving your opponent the window they need to get back in it.

Now, I'm not saying it doesn't have a place, but usually you just want cards that fit the aforementioned plan.

they're probably just not in any rush to release them. 

I've been running a variety of control Warrior lists this season and the one I like best uses both. Control Warrior feels grindier than ever and Justicar has been a huge factor in winning control matchups against every class. Against Midrange it's helped me survive the late turns until I can start landing monsters, and against aggro it is sometimes too slow, that's true. What I like about it in that matchup though is that it fixes a problem CW often had with fast aggro; that being that you could eventually stabilize but would already be too close to death and 2 armor a turn wasn't enough. Now you can reach that same stabilization point and you're gaining 4 life a turn, which helps recover.

Baron has just been solid overall, often clearing some of the board and eating a BGH shot, which is all I want it to do really. Makes your traditionally bad matchups (board flood decks like Paladin) better.

I don't hate the idea of this, but the card doesn't actually do anything. It doesn't disrupt anything they're doing, and no one wants to play a vanilla minion that costs five, no matter how pumped it gets against Paladins sometimes. 

I don't think card buffs are the necessary factor to create diversity. I think that people need to be creative, try out new things, and quit relying on netdecking to get the optimal decks. It's sad because this won't really become undone, but I remember in the starting days of hearthstone everyone just experimented with what they thought would make a good deck. Now it's all about latching onto a deck that hit legend. I encourage you to be one of those people that tries out something new. I've been messing around a lot with control hunter and control rogue. Now that's not insanely unique but it is something you don't see often.

Depends on your patience.

Rank 5 to Legend takes 1 win for every 1 loss, plus 26 wins.

If you average a 70% winrate, that's 7 wins and 3 losses per 10 games, so you are netting +4 stars per 10 games.  65 games to Legend.

If you average a 65% winrate, that's 6.5 wins and 3.5 losses per 10 games, so you are netting +3 stars per 10 games.  87 games to Legend.

If you average a 60% winrate, that's 6 wins and 4 losses per 10 games, so you are netting +2 stars per 10 games.  130 games to Legend.

If you average a 55% winrate, that's 5.5 wins and 4.5 losses per 10 games, so you are netting +1 star per 10 games.  260 games to Legend.

If you average a 51% winrate, that's 5.1 wins and 4.9 losses per 10 games, so you are netting 0.2 stars per 10 games.  1300 games to Legend.

So i hit rank 4 today, have only been this low 2 times b4 and both times were at the end of the month.  Been running pretty good, around 4- 15 i would say, how big of a grind am i looking at?

Quote from Frostraven jum

But when 11 health minions die to a 1 cost spell...

...
Compare Recycle, Wrath, Swipe and Starfall to Shield Slam, Execute and Brawl. And even Crush.
Like, freaking seriously come on -- go on and compare.
Especially Execute is disgusting, when played on a 11 health Ysera.
And worst of all -- not only is it completely unbalanced that you have to FORCE the warrior to spend four specific 1 mana spells before you CAN play a 9 mana minion on an empty board safely -- but the interaction is so disgusting in flavor that I just turn off the game whenever it happens.

2 armor? You can't play Ysera.
Shield Block + Shieldmaiden + Shield Slam = 12 damage for 1 mana.

If the warrior didn't have 10 ways to deal 1 damage, it'd be fine... but... they have -- and most of the time, they can kill a 9 mana minion at full health for 2 mana and then play a 8 mana minion themselves... and Druid can't deal with 7+ mana minions effectively.

...

Execute: After you attack a minion this turn, destroy it. It's a 1 mana spell for crying out loud -- you still have Crush.
Shield slam: Should deal damage equal to the minions attack to the warrior.

This is bull and you know it.  You can almost telegraph what the warrior is going to do if he has 10 armor, play smarter then.  AND it's not 1 mana to pull off a Shield Slam it takes many button pushes or more expensive spells/minions to build up that armor as well as keeping that armor and an Execute requires another card to pull it off too or have damage put on that creature by a weapon or creature which the ladder will probably die if its important enough to Execute.  So should I start bitching about Sap, Naturalize, Hunter's Mark or Equality?  If your hinging your match on just one card your doing it wrong.

Seriously, why are we still talking about this like control is the cancer here?

Woosh... People aren't "hating" because you are legend, but because you are stupid. With TGT and possibility of getting another 3/4 from Shaman drop like Totem Golem Shredder is even more powerful then ever. 

http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Zhevra_Charger

http://db.vanillagaming.org/?npc=2749