Hearthpwn

Quote from Rinnegan37 >>

Quote from Minibassada >>

This just sound like salt to me. The aggro-control-combo cycle is essential for not just HS but also other similar cards games. In the ideal meta aggro, control and combo should be represented equally.

 Idk why I'm doing this, why I'm writing all this out, when it won't change anything, but here goes nothing. 

in the ideal meta there:

-> is not a single deck that is pure aggro, control or combo. 

-> all you have is midrange decks.  

-> every matchup is 50%-50. 

-> the skilled player wins 60% of the time.

-> adding heavy rng cards to your midrange deck makes it more fun to play, but reduces your winrate by 5 to 10%. 

there.

that's it. that's the ideal meta for the average gamer. 

game design isn't about what makes you happy, it's what makes (would make) the majority of your (potential) customers happy.

 

That honestly doesn't sound like a card game at all. That sounds like a well handled turn based strategy game.

The idea behind a turn based strategy game is to create a 50/50 situation.  Even if both sides aren't the same, the balance is set where both sides have a 50/50 chance to win.  RNG is then eliminated completely leaving the game down to the player's ability to know and perform the different skill elements of the game.

Starcraft, though Real time instead of Turn based, is a perfect example of this.  The sides aren't equal but are balanced so that the choice is based on personal preference and desired focus of strategy rather than trying to achieve an advantage.  Thus the difference that drives who wins is who has best mastered the MANY highly complex and difficult elements of the game.  

That doesn't work in a card game.  Unlike other games where you have a SPECIFIC set of units/skills/abilities that can then be manually tuned to each other, we have some 400-700 cards that, though, are split up between classes, still create tens of thousands of combinations that change how the deck operates.  You're NOT going to make a meta of 50/50 matchups with that. 

You also take away from a major concept of the game: deck design.  The idea is that I'm supposed to be putting my deck against your deck.  Which means my goal is to find a deck that has an advantage against your deck.  It's WHY we design decks in the first place.  The entire POINT to playing aggro is to beat midrange by outracing it.  The POINT to playing control is to beat Tempo decks.  If you aren't letting the different archetypes fight each other, you might as well not HAVE archetypes, which then questions what the point of allowing deck designs in the first place.

After all, you don't HAVE to allow players to design their own decks.  Games like Red Dragon Inn give pre-made decks which are then balanced for a fair fight.  

Which means you aren't anywhere close to a CCG at all. Which is my point.  It's not that what you are asking for is wrong or bad. It's..well.. it's a person playing a first person shooter and wanting to be able to have everyone pause it and have set turns instead.  You just might be in the wrong genre.

Quote from MProdigy >>

No redirects to salt thread please, have some competence possession haha. Genuinely curious why so much salt for every imaginable thing.

 To wonder what makes a negative community is to wonder why people post so negatively.

to which I'll say "you know why though you don't realize it."   

Seriously, take a look at your posting record, and note just how many of your posts involve either a direct negative complaint over something, or, even if it is overall positive, involves a negative insult i.e. "dipshit noobs with no skill".  

This isn't a complaint against you, but a way to show just how easily a negative community is formed.  A game, or event, or concept, or whatever can make a person passionate.  That passion can be positive or negative, or course.  The thing is, if it's positive then you aren't going to feel compelled to talk about it.  There's only so much "wow this is great!" you can say, especially when you'd rather be..well.. playing instead.  

When we see something that needs to be changed, though, an improvement or something going wrong, and we have passion, then we want to get together.  We want to find others who agree, or convince those who disagree of our standing.  We want to soften the negative feelings with togetherness.  We want to rally together to look for ways to bring about change.  1001 other reasons a sociologist can get deeper into.

The more passionate we are towards said game/event/whatever, the more emotional we get, so negative feelings get amplified, logical thinking gets decreased, assumptions get made, and so on.  Mix in a batch of that feeling of being anonymous and a dash of the feeling of talking to your computer rather than to another human being, and you get a LOT of reasons to be negative, or 'to be salty'. 

So what makes a negative community?  Passion, lack of fleshy meetups, a desire to fix or change something, and there you go. 

Note that a game being bad or good actually isn't a requirement.  Some of the worst communities can come from a very good game.  The game brings a lot of passion and the 'desire to fix/change' comes from the community wanting to make everyone LOVE the game. 

(I'd take the worst of the hearthstone community over the Undertale community during that game's peak) 

You don't get any extra time.  What's happening is that the opponent is inputting all of the steps before the animations finish and before the rope burns out.  The trick is that while the rope 'ends' as usual to them while the animations keep going, you see the rope 'hang' while the animations go on.  Their rope ended though and they can't do anything more.  

There's actually a setting you have to agree to in your blizzard account to have such emails sent to you.  You should also be getting monthly reports of how you did in the game with facts such as "played mage 10 times" or "killed 20 chickens" (factual ones, just "VERY specific sometimes).  I don't preorder and I got the email (but I keep up to date so I didn't actually open it, and I was correct: I learned about the card before I saw the email)

The way I view it is that Hearthstone is a drunk retelling of WoW.

That is, the canon story is that we're all in an INN playing a magical card game.  The sets are based on the history of the world but is designed by a bunch of farmers and laborers rather than historians or folks who have actually been there.  They've heard of places like Gadgetstan and Black Rock Mountain from a merchant who knew a merchant who knew a guy who's cousin swear they saw someone who's been there. 

Then they make cards out of those stories, and are probably drunk while doing it.  It's about as accurate and chronological as a video game about the Three Kingdoms made by college students who learned about it through anime.

Quote from Chimera >>

 Currently it is an independent side project, but it just happened to fill the void as well for this total neglect of card reveal season this time around by Curse. There's no reason to jump ship, but you're welcome to come and enjoy being able to actually theory-craft decks.

 Good to know.  Myself I don't really theorycraft before expansion time (because I'd like to know what card I'll actually HAVE :P).  I'm mostly here for the community, so as long as the 'official' spot for everyone is here then here I am.  The second you wish to move the community to there just let us know on the forums (I don't always catch the news: my link goes strait to General Discussion) and I'm there.

Sidenote, the theme here is nice but honestly the darker theme is MUCH easier on the eyes (2am EST)

Quote from Elric >>

I wouldn’t say abandoned , considering the amount of comments on Hearthstation. So I’m sure this site gets more traffic which is a shame because I prefer the lay out and feel of hearthstation more. 

 

Quote from Chimera >>

Quote from JagBone >>

It is only roughly 1 week or so to release date and nearly a third of Shadows cards have been revealed. Yet, the guide is not even updated, except for its sister website: Hearthstation.

Admins, I know you have a new website to cater and develop but don't just leave this site empty. If Hearthstation is supposed to replace Hearthpwn, then say so.

Even the site logo is still Rasthakhan-inspired logo. Sure I can just go to Hearthstation to see the guide but I prefer Hearthpwn cos it has been my main Hearthstone updates since I started playing it when Un'goro was still being promoted, nearly 3 years on this site. Thank you for reading.

 We don't even know what's going on ourselves my dude. We only make the content, so we're doing it somewhere we can actually maintain ourselves. Hearthpwn is a javascript abomination.

 I can only imagine .. I work for the SCDOT and our OS/OW system runs on outdated Java. Our IT department couldn’t believe it. 

 Well most people are on hearthpwn because there's no official word on any move.  most probably don't even know about the other site, especially given the "OMG hearthpwn sucks they haven't updated anything" posts.  I know I wasn't sure whether to even mention it given I wasn't sure if it was meant to be a replacement or just something on the side unrelated or what.  

If there was a "Ok we're abandoning this site, everyone go to Hearthstation now" post then we'd have a lot more people on there. I know I would move the second I know I'm supposed to.  

Quote from NOveXoR >>

I think for Tog it's becoming rich again, for Hagatha... Idk probably revenge on us, for Boom its spreading chaos with his inventions and making explosions, for Fortune Teller it's probably the same as for Rafaam... This leaves Rafaam. Obvious answer is to find artifacts for his collection (I'm not into lore so it would be nice if someone listed ones that are in Dalaran). But teasers didn't mention what he wants. 

 Fortune Teller is an instrument for the Old Gods (the trailer shows that they are still a part of her).  Her being a part of it means that there's some dark evil Thing that is going to benefit Them.  Something that we probably will never find out. 

Boom I think is less about chaos and more about being useful.  He wants to make a difference with his inventions and not sit around lonely with his chicken.  The League means he's part of something Special, and that's enough for him.

Hagetha probably would be happy enough just causing pain and torment but her trailer suggests that she's still getting hunted down by the monster hunters.  She's probably looking for a solution that'll let her turn the tables and tear apart All that is Good in the process.

Tog is probably the only one really after 'stuff', which is enough.

Raf is the tricky one.  It could be an artifact.  It could be something immensely dark.  It could be something silly.  It could involve betraying his group along with it.  We'll see.

Quote from Anonlove >>

If I was an invester I'd be worried too, every other time blizzard games spiked in popularity it comes crashing down for some reason, like a curse or something. WoW and Diablo are pretty much dead, Overwatch is on the way out compared to what they had a year prior, HotS, lmao. Starcraft isn't supported anymore etc. Everyone of Blizzards big projects are underperforming, no wonder they are trying to make Diablo into a cash grab mobile game.

 The sad thing is, that IS how  an investor would see it.  

If you're the company itself, you wouldn't be.  WoW is on a steady milk for over 10 years and still at closee to 10k players, numbers most MMOs at their peak would've dreamed of having.  Diablo 3 has this odd relationship with the playerbase, which goes to play other games then, the second something new is added, comes flooding in, cash on hand to gobble it up, then go leave again.  It's a pretty reliable money maker.  Overwatch has crested but is establishing itself into a proper niche which, if cared for, can establish steady revenue for years.  Starcraft isn't a think revenue wise but it's not exactly a high cost to maintain.  Hearthstone's overall revenue is still going up year over year and is settling in well now that the hype for CCGs has faded.  

From a company viewpoint, it's a highly stabilized company with stable, expected profits that doesn't have to fear going supernova due to lost hype.  They can literally stay on this course for 5 years before even being worried about a new game, which is why they always had spent a long time putting out games.  Starcraft fans had no problems not having an RTS, nevermind a starcraft game for over 10 YEARS and went full hype the second the first trailer showed up.  Imagine if CoD went from Original CoD (2003) then nothing until Black Ops 2 (2012).  

It's a manufactured crisis due to outside parties.  It's like if you were getting ready to go to an appointment due at 1pm, found out you would get there right at 1pm, then a coworker you are ridesharing says "OMG, I NEED to get there at 12 so I can have a coffee beforehand.  GO FASTER!" Then you rush out the door forgetting half of your stuff and go at twice the speed limit until you crash into a semi.  

Blizzard SHOULDN'T be a company in trouble according to the numbers they need as a company.  According to the numbers people WANT them to have, DEMAND they should have, they are in a crisis.

Quote from GentilleMouche >>

So the people who don't enjoy reprints shouldn't voice their opinion because reprints are normal and it makes you sad ?

Some re used effect are very well done (Hecklebot, Rafaam) some are just boring, literal reprints (blastmaster boom) or just push further a broken archetype in Wild (Mass resurrection) . Many times Blizzard claimed that Standard format was supposed to feel fresh and new every rotation. It's not going to work if they just reprint core synergy cards of rotating archetypes. 

I think it's a fair criticism and I'm sorry it makes you sad. 

 The OP didn't state that the critics aren't allowed to voice their opinion. But the OP IS voicing their opinion on their opinion.

That is, you're allowed to speak out. But I'm allowed to speak out against you.

As for what you bring up, that is a concern I can see coming. However, I don't see that actually happening yet in the current set. For example, the original Dr. Boom was a card used in every deck that went past turn 7 as he was one of the view ways you could recover the board while offering a possible avenue to winning.  He was also literally the only usable 7 drop in the game at the time and almost the only usable 7+ drop.  Late game cards SUCKED in the early years.

THIS Boom, while he has a similar mechanic, he's specifically locked to one specific deck: Bomb Warrior.  Instead of being a generalized board-clear/late game threat, this boom is a secondary win condition.  If your bomb deck is working well he's worthless as you are too busy seeing your opponent explode.  He's there to cover the times when RNG makes your bombs bad tempo by recovering the board and recoving the lost pressure you had by playing 3/3s that do nothing and meh weapons.  It's taking an old mechanic and finding an interesting new niche for him.

And that's sort of the point.  Spare parts were near worthless things you just used to power up spell synergies (read: auctioneer food) while lackies appropriate decks that rely on small minion synergies like buff warlock.  Twinspell is trying to move magic classes from clear and burst strategies to more long-from value generators, which leans more for a fatigue style of play.  

Will it all work?  Of course not.  But the things that do are trying to take old mechanics and bring them up in a new way.  Combined with a year's worth of cards that will go from almost 0 play to the only game in town and you have quite a different meta from the past, which is the point.

That said, I can see the reason to fear what you bring up, especially since we haven't seen everything in the set yet.  However, a lot of the folks the OP is talking about isn't taking your view point.  Most seem to fall into the camps of:

1. I want something new and shiny!  It's not new enough.  *end*

2. Frozen throne and Kobolds were great!  Why aren't we doing more of that!?

The first is less a worry about a return of old metas and more of some desperate desire for 'the new rush' leads to arguments like making massive changes to cards every week.. just to 'shake things up'.  The second has threads with 50 pages of articles why that's not a good idea.  Both make the OP, and myself, sad.  We wouldn't be so sad if most critiques were more of what you bring up, even if I don't think we're going that route.

Quote from Rise_Before_Dawn >>

I'd prefer to see new mechanics. All the treats should get "treant" race, like the Ancients are treants basically but are not counted towards some cards reductions. The "Undead" race has to be added asap. Then on top of it we would surely benefit from classes like "assassin", "warrior", and there could be so much more, because triclass cards are awesome and everybody enjoyed playing them, just imagine some cards from old expansions and classic set getting additional synergy that wouldn't be awesome?

 If a treant race was made, Ancients would NOT be a part of it. They deliberately decides which were 'treants' for balancing sake.  In fact, we honestly have a 'treant' race, just without the bottom tag.  Honestly I think they should just go ahead and add it, but it wouldn't make any changes to what's going on.  

There's no point in adding an undead race just for the sake of adding it.  What specifically would they DO that is essentially 'new' and require synergy between them?  Don't say 'they are linked to the graveyard" since 1. we already have that in spades without needing specific undead tags and 2. if anything we're a little 'sick' of the graveyard right now given the reception of Mass Res.

There's gallons, GALLONS of threads dictacting why adding a class would be a bad idea.  Read on those before I go write yet another 10 page essay rehashing it.  Simply put, no we aren't getting new classes, and don't need them, and we already did 'skill ups' on original classes via death Knights.

And I lived through the triclass era.  There are three utterly UTTERLY hated eras in hearthstone: the post-boomsday era, the Undertaker era, and post-Mean Streets (prepatch-Witchwood was about to go that way if the patch didn't come soon enough).  

I know most people either forgot or never lived through it, but the #1 biggest problem back then wasn't the OP nature of the decks as they weren't OP (yes I include Jade.  YES jade wasn't OP!) but in how 'samey' it felt since so many classes were using the same blasted cards or else cards that did the same thing overall.  Having three classes all spamming jades was NOT a good idea.  Having the entire meta either be "spam pirates", "spam jades", or "pray for Reno" was NOT a good idea.

And to avoid a flame war over a misinterpretation jade wasn't OP.  It was a piece of trash horribly made concept of a deck that was as mindless as you can get and rendered an entire archetype of decks worthless.  In some ways, it was WORSE than being OP (compare to Patron which WAS OP).  Mean streets taught us a lot about how what makes a good meta by showing that 'raw power' was less important than variety and fun.. by showing us a meta devoid of variety and fun.

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Quote from NOveXoR>>

Magic for example doesn't get so much hate for doing this, does it?

That's because in Magic the Gathering, if you already have an old card that was just reprinted, you can play with it, you don't need the new version. Blizzard is not literally reprinting old cards like Wizards of the Coast usually does, they are just making new ones similar to already existing ones, that's all (ok, ok, Wizards of the Coasts does that too, but they have been in the business for so long that them doing such a thing is completely acceptable and understandable by almost everyone). But do I care about it? No, not really, at least not yet, because we still haven't seen the full set and even with this not so creative approach things can turn really interesting (especially because of the rotation ;)).

 In summary:  Reprinting old cards isn't what Blizzard is doing.

Blizzard is making cards that are similar to older cards, something other well established companies have been doing for decades successfully, but we aren't sure if Blizzard can pull it off as they are still relatively new.

And it's way too early to judge whether they are taking something old and making it new and interesting or whether the screwed up.

/thread?

I'm just gonna start posting this whenever someone asks about Animal Companion, Boom Bots, etc being rigged

If you want anyone to take you seriously, collect data.

The best fix would be for people to actually adjust to the meta playstyle (as in, it's not your deck, it's how you play).

The biggest issues I see with people playing against patron warrior has definitely been them blindly trying to apply pressure which is wrong for multiple reasons:

• First, even if you keep their draw under control, odds are a patron warrior will out draw just about every other deck out their making long games really bad for them. The slower the game goes the more likely it is the warrior is going to lose. This means that you only need to apply enough pressure to draw removals and trade efficiently with their noncombo minions (which is really easy) so that they can't keep saving combo pieces. Lots of early pressure really fucks them up, but once you reach mid game you should start to slow down s that amount of pressure is just enough to keep the board down. Applying any more is more likely to kill you than help you win. Remember, a warrior can't really OTK without your help so if they do a 20+ damage turn, even if they had the heart of the cards on their side, you 99.99% of the time fucked up somewhere along the way and it's was likely not due to variance. Some people might find it difficult to reach this balance on their board, but if you can, patron warrior becomes almost a joke deck.

• Second, I watch people play stuff like Dr. Boom because "It's Dr. Boom. It's a super good card!" and then they die the next turn to a frothing combo because you just gave them 3 extra minions to be hit, and 2 extra sources of damage which will statistically not kill the frothing while still hitting a minion. I've watch so many pros do this, repeatedly, and lose. For example, watching Trump stream today as Handlock, he was faced with a decision about how to deal with an Emperor a warrior just played with a mostly full hand uising 8 mana, a molten in play, with a Dr. Boom and a Siphon Soul in hand, and 22 hp.  The warrior had also already used all their removal, but not a single piece of any combo after drawing about 60% of their deck. Trump opted to attack  the emperor with the molten and play the Dr Boom (the fast play) instead of using the Siphon Soul and tapping (the slow play) which ended up costing him the game (thanks to some unlucky bomb RNG, though he was likely dead anyway without it) because Dr Boom translated into an additional 5 damage (could have been 10) to his face which was exact lethal. I see shit like this way too often; we've already established that high pressure isn't important against patron, so playing a Dr. Boom against Patron often has the same effect as a Druid using Dark Wispers to summon 5 wisps has. You wouldn't play Millhouse into a freeze mage on turn 10, you won't play a Giant when you know your opponent has a BGH, and you wouldn't play a Tirion naked against a priest who hasn't used MC once, so why in the world would you give a combo warrior an additional 5 to 10 damage?

• The last thing I've noticed (which is most disturbing) is that, after losing to a Patron combo and analyzing how they lost, a lot of people don't think they made mistakes where they clearly had. In the Trump example I just used, he said at the end of the game that he still thinks the Dr. Boom was the right move to make and it's just a shame he ended up getting lethal. But if he hadn't made that play. If he had simply bid his time and played slow he had an almost guranteed win because he still had his taunt givers and a blecher (in hand) left, with heals and jaraxxus (in hand) while the warrior had zero removal left and had lost almost all his noncombo minions. A slow game would have decimated him at that point because the warrior couldn't speed things up without help from Trump trying to speed the game up. It's true that you shouldn't play around variance, but this isn't variance, it was a poor play that did not take into account that the opponent was a patron warrior. There's been way too many people getting combo'd by patron warrior and just saying, "well it's variance" when it is more like denial. You have to be honest with yourself when you made the game losing play because you didn't not respect their combo like you should've.

But yeah, that's my rant on the subject as someone who stomps patron over 60% of the time with mustard pally (a very bad matchup). You don't need to kill a combo deck like patron outright. A patron deck can't win a war of attrition where you steadily grind away at their combo pieces without giving them enough of a board to combo against. This is true of ALL combo decks, if you can deny the setting they need for their win condition, you WILL win simply because they can't.

(looks at the shieldmaiden in hand) AND THIS ISN'T EVEN MY FINAL FORM.

If you want to "slow down" the meta I think you need to look at why the meta is "fast". Generally I think that breaks down to two main things.

1) Deck costs. Most aggro decks tend to cost less than slower decks at least to some extent simply due to the fact that their aren't that many cheap legendaries and the few that do exist don't really fit into aggro decks. You might see a Leeroy, Loathab or a class specific legendary like Archmage Antonidas in mech mage but those often aren't required and are still much cheaper than most control decks that run several legendaries. To some extent I think blizzard tried to help out with this in BRM. Some of the legendaries seem like easier to get slightly less effective alternatives to some of the commonly used legendaries and even grim patron has slowed things down some. Dragon paladin also seems somewhat viable as a lower more control deck that isn't too expensive.

2) Wins per hour vs win Percentage. In the ladder until you get to rank 5 Wins per hour can be more effective for leveling than your win percentage. This is largely because the win streak bonuses mean that wins are worth more than losses. The floor level 20 where you can't loose anymore stars also affects this some but the main thing is the win streak bonuses. Faster wins are also more effective for grinding your 100 gold per day from 30 wins. The win streak bonuses are the big reason why the meta tends to slow down once you get better than rank 5. You wins are no longer worth more than your losses so you need to actually win more than 50% of the time and by a decent margin if you want to climb quickly. I'm sure it doesn't help any that it's commonly assumed that the quickest way to ladder is to play facehunter for fast wins. Even if it isn't true people will still keep doing it if they think it is the case. This is one that blizzard hasn't yet done anything to change.

Quote from Pham »

Quote from Dustincr »

Decks that violate your guidelines: http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks

Otherwise known as "all of the good ones"

I actually did go through the first 10, but then I got bored.

I think some people are getting the wrong idea about what I'm trying to do here.

What I'm not saying: You have to follow these guidelines or your deck won't be competitive or good
What I AM saying: If you follow these guidelines your deck will be somewhat competitive

I am well aware there are good decks that do not follow these guidelines. I would appreciate it if we could stay on-topic, though.

Yeah, I agree 100% with what you're saying.

Too many people's process goes as follows: 1) look up a deck recently played by any known pro, whatever the setting it was played, and as long ago as the latest release or patch, 2) modify it for any cards you don't have, no other exceptions.  I mean, you can tell from the amount of "such and such deck does this" comments there that everyone is generally aware of what the list of "such and such decks" is. And of course, that's as sure a recipe for making sure that you're never playing a deck that's bad. But you'll also never be able to adapt a deck to the next season's meta, or take a tournament deck and adopt it to ladder, etc. You do need to understand the principles themselves that go into a deck so that you can apply those principles.

But, I also do think that the list of do's and dont's is going to vary widely by archetype. The one laid out in the OP is for a late-game/value/control style deck. It's focused on always having answers and playing the best late-game plays. Better would be to understand what kind of deck needs answers for what window of the game, what answers are best for what threats, and what makes an efficient late-game card. A pretty lengthy article could be written on each of these topics individually.

The principle I think a few other people in the thread are trying to get across is how to determine what archetype you are in the first place - Aggro, Midrange, Tempo/Combo, or Control. An old Magic the Gathering theorist, Zvi Mowshowitz, coined the term "the critical turn". Basically, what turn your deck either literally or effectively wins the game.  Following that, what role your deck took in the match, not necessarily your archetype, was determined by whose critical turn was later. In Magic the Gathering, that turned out to be quite useful being applied to the theory of archetypes, because how the game works prevents more than one deck of each archetype being viable in a format (or at least it did for a long time). In Hearthstone, a dozen or so decks being viable means matchup-specific analysis is much more important. But I think relating to the principle of running answer cards, you don't need to run any that are designed for threats that hit the board beyond what your critial turn is. Which is why you see Aggro decks like Hunter and Tempo decks like Rogue not running Big Game Hunter, Taunt cards or Silence cards. Their critical turn is early. If they are going blow for blow with a Silence-critical target, like Sylvannas, then they've already lost (or won), and the 6 or 7-drop used to do them in is academic.

So, maybe more of a multi-step process is in order: 1) Select a one or two strong interactions, and decide what your critical turn is based on the mana cost of those interactions, 2) determine your archetype, 3) determine your matchup strengths, 4) run answer cards that are good the threats that hit the board before your critical turn, with a particular focus on those threats that are being run by your bad matchups.

Notes

Revenge of the Zoo - After several months of wallowing in the lower tier of competitive decks, Zoo Lock has burst back on the scene off the back of Imp Gang Boss. The most used deck with an insane win rate, especially against previous favorites Midrange Druid and Mech Mage - Zoo Lock is back.

A Game of Thrones - Couple weeks ago we saw Hunter, Druids, and Mech Mages dominate in the tournament scene. But players now come prepared for them, causing them to all tumble below the 50% winrate despite still being very popular in usage.

Lumber-Mill Druid and Patron Warrior - Two of the most unique decks used this weekend. Tidesoftime piloted a Lumber-Mill Druid deck to 1st place using 2 Volcanic Lumberers in addition to the traditional Mill Druid. While Chakki and Forsen each brought their own version of the Patron Warrior.

The Tournament Meta is going through a tumultuous time with the release of each BRM Wing - expect things to get heated up as all the Dragon cards are released over the next two weeks.

Thanks for checking it out!

-DisguisedToast

TL:DR -

Are the daily  "nerf hunter" threads healthy for Hearthstone? (A complain post)

No they are not, because all they do is making people repeat the same stupid excuses for their own shortcommings over and over and over again!!! Yes, believe it or not, Face Hunter, while being powerful, is also one of the decks that is the most easily counterable in the whole f... game: If it really bugs you that much loosing against that deck: just play a Control Warrior (to the op, there you can also put aaaaallll your beloved legendaries in) or freeze mage or control priest or a midrangy demonlock...Face Hunter is not OP, right now it is powerful, even very powerful, but easy to handle and in so far a check on control decks that would get very greedy without the dreaded Face Hunter!

And now to the unhealthiness: Face Hunter is the excuse of every mediocre player out there - "I could easily go Legend but I don't want to play facehunter, cos' you now like, I am a totally cooool control player" ... Bullshit, you very probably could not, FaceHunter is a deck that can go Legend but like every hearthstone deck, at a higher level, you have to master it well and additionally, Face Hunter is always a meta game call, if they get too popular (which they are NOT on higher ranks) they usually get teched out of the meta pretty hard ...! All this stupid whining keeps people from really focusing on the game and improving and, more importantly, it makes the community look like a bunch of crybabies!

This helped some people on offi forums.

Hey there,

I see there are many people who have issues with the problem mentioned in the topic.
Basically, what probably happens to you is the following:
1. Downloaded Hearthstone from the Play Store
2. Launched it
3. It began "unpacking crates", which resulted in an "not enough space" error.

You need to have an actual external SD card with at least 2GB of free space
What you have to do is fairly simple, just follow these steps:
Step 1. Remove Hearthstone, you can even plug your phone to the PC and check if there are any file leftovers, if there are some, remove them as well. Leave no trace of Android Hearthstone on your phone. You may find these in "Phone\Android\obb" directory.
Step 2. Download it again, just like you did before.
Step 3. Do not open it! Otherwise you'll have to redownload it again.
Step 4. Open the App Manager and find Hearthstone.
Step 5. Transfer Hearthstone onto the SD Card
Step 6. Launch Hearthstone

It just worked for me, I wonder if this tutorial will be helpful for any of you.
Also, I'm sorry for the separate topic about this, but it may be pretty useful for the people looking for a quick answer, instead of skimming through all the other topics discussing this matter.

I disagree with your anecdote about Craig Wescoe being a Face/Aggro player. Aggro player he is, yes. Face? not so much. 

You see, if you have to make the M:tG comparison, Face deck is actually Burn deck. The point of aggro deck is to contest for board and push for win. Face deck doesn't do that. Face decks are designed to get enough damage to deal exactly lethal, regardless of the game state. So it is like a Burn deck. Think of a string of spells like this: Lightning Bolt (3 dmg), Incinerate (3 dmg), Ball Lightning (6 dmg), Hero of Oxid Ridge (4 dmg), Lava Axe (5 dmg). The calculation: your opponent has 20 life, so you do this string of damage - 3+3+6+4+5 = 21 dmg. The rest of the deck is just a repetition of said cards to increase the consistency of the deck. Does Burn deck cares if you bring out a 16/16? no. Because you are dead. Face decks are just the same. Steady Shot Leper Gnome Kill Command Wolfrider Arcane Golem Leeroy Jenkins.