The conditions for the other giants are 1) cards in hand, and 2) total of all other minions on the board. Those conditions do not come with it the inherent high risk of being near death. having 9 cards in your hand does not mean you are close to death. Having a bunch of total minions on the field does not mean you are close to death -- they could be your minions, or the enemy's minions. The condition of having 10 hp is far riskier than the condition of having more minions or a certain number of cards in your hand. Thus, because the MG's casting condition is riskier, it makes sense that the MG should be allowed to be played for cheaper. Higher risk, higher reward.
Finally, someone who understands the concept of "gambling with hero health".
And having 9 cards in hand is not a risk, not even a bad thing. You have 9 options, and a 8/8 for 2 mana as a bonus, right at the early-mid game. If that sounds better than MG, it's because it normally is. :)
It's not risky to have MG in your deck (for the right deck). For mountain giant, you have to lose board to get those cards. If you have enough cards for mountain giants, that means you are holding back cards to make it cheaper/only playing cards that draw (which are weaker). While Mountain Giant is by no means a weak card, it is actually MORE risky than molten imo.
"It's not really gambling. It's just having a card in your hand you can't play unless you are about half health. A lot of cards are dead-weight until the right situation. It's not really a risk =/
Me: The deck is laughably easy to beat.
You: The deck is NOT laughably easy to beat. I got owned by a warrior playing OTK despite playing the perfect counter to it and using a bazillion taunts including 2 senjin, 2 sunwalkers, and a tirrion. (QQ more please)
You: But I also never lose to this deck other than that one time and it's not OP at all !
So if it's not OP, then why tell us your sob story of getting owned despite playing the perfect deck to counter it ? If it wasn't op, and you were playing the perfect counter, does it mean you blow so much that you can't defeat a non-op deck using the its perfect counter ? "
Not responding to this because you are putting words in my mouth again. Keep the streak alive.
"And to re-iterate because you obviously chose to selectively ignore my explanation -- warriors armor up because they need to stall until they have their combo. A warrior that doesn't armor up is a warrior that will soon be dead, or a warrior that already has his combo. "
I didn't ignore it, I said there was nothing he needed to stay alive against. A paladin summoning 1-1s is not terrifying in the slighest, and if he does play minions to apply pressure, they are easy to clear. Armoring up when not in danger is just dumb, unless you are against a rush-down deck.
"Same is true of warlock aggro. No aoe board clears, or not enough aoe board clears, and you lose. If i run into a warlock murlock deck and don't draw my consecration by turn 4, i lose."
Warlock aggro is something that does need to be nerfed, as it is OP, namely the blood imp only giving health to adjacent minions, but that's a different thread.
"I still don't get wtf you mean by rock/paper/scissors. Isn't this how the game is supposed to work ? Or do you want a deck that does well against every other deck ?"
I don't want the actually gameplay to be irrelevant. What would be the point of playing if the game is over based on who has what deck? That sounds fun. Last game I ran into X deck and lost because I run Y deck, but this game I win because he ran Z deck. Someone playing better than their opponent should matter.
"You get a strong minion for free because you are at 10 hp. At 10 hp, a pyroblast will kill you, and the giant won't save you. An argent commander + blessing of kings combo will also kill you. And that's assuming nothing else is on the board. an 8/8 for free at 10 health is justifiable reward for the risk involved. "
If being at 10 HP lost you the game, there may as well only be 20 HP on a hero. Also, what risk? I am not seeing any risk here. It's one card that is cost effective at 20 HP, free at 10, and great anywhere in between.
"The conditions for the other giants are 1) cards in hand, and 2) total of all other minions on the board. Those conditions do not come with it the inherent high risk of being near death. having 9 cards in your hand does not mean you are close to death. Having a bunch of total minions on the field does not mean you are close to death -- they could be your minions, or the enemy's minions. The condition of having 10 hp is far riskier than the condition of having more minions or a certain number of cards in your hand. Thus, because the MG's casting condition is riskier, it makes sense that the MG should be allowed to be played for cheaper. Higher risk, higher reward."
Holding onto cards so you can play mountain giant isn't as risky as taking damage? And Sea giant... well no one runs seagiant because it is normally nearly unplayable due to the current meta. With MG, you don't actually risk anything other than having the card on your deck. You play it when you take damage, which you do in any game where you aren't vastly ahead.
AHHHH I'm recharged from my hangover so I'm back !
I did not put words in your mouth. You stuck your own foot in your mouth. You said it was not OP. You said you only lost to it once. Yet you came to us and cried a sob-story about how this deck owned you despite you playing the perfect counter to the deck. You stuck your foot in your mouth and are full of shit. I can find the quote for you again if you want. Either the deck is not OP, or the deck is OP. You have taken both positions in your ass-backwards attempt to debate this point with me. If the deck is OP, then you should lose to it multiple times. If the deck is not OP, then you suck, because you lost to it playing its direct counter. You don't understand this deck. You don't understand how to counter it. You haven't played it, and you don't even have the molten giants that you have screamed bloody-murder about. You are ignorant.
P.S. I just played another OTK warrior. It got dicey there for a second, he opened up with a worgen/inner-rage on me, but I killed it off and stabilized. he got down to 14 health, and I healed him up with holy light. I then started flooding the board with minions, and he got scarred and started armoring up. I was pissed, so I decided I was going to kill him with fatigue damage. I took him down from 32 HEALTH. The final killing blow was a fatigue draw for 5 damage. Some of you may say that this playing a counter-intuitive game, or playing the game in a way that is "un-fun" or un-intended. But i gotta tell you, Killing an OTK warrior with a fatigue draw was absolutely HILARIOUS.
I do think increasing the molten giants to 25 mana to start might be a nice tweak to them. Still can get to 0 cost but way riskier than now.
I don't think that is the right move, it would be far too much of a nerf to the card. With 25 base cost, it would almost never be playable until your already dead. I think all it needs is a minimum cost, and perhaps a max cost reduction depending on how high the minimum cost would be.
@SoySauceOnRice
How many times do I have to say this? I never EVER said this deck was overpowered. Your streak for making up opinions for me to hold continues. What I HAVE said is that this deck is unfun and a based of a BS mechanic. What I HAVE said that this deck is hard to counter if you DON'T happen to be running a counter for it.
Maybe warriors never get into OTK range against you, because they have to burn through all their armor to get there lol. That lets me KNOW you only play against bad players of the deck. If you want your health to go down, why the hell would you armor up? All it would do is save him some damage from recruits, you know, the damage that he WANTS to take.
I haven't gone back on a word I said, I have said that this deck isn't laughably easy to beat. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have counters, it doesn't' mean it's unbeatable, it doesn't mean it's OP.
Now, I dare you. Go and read my posts and respond to what I actually say, and what I actually think. You know what, I'll make it easier. Here's the 5th time I've posted this info for you.
I think:
1. This deck should be nerfed because it is unfun, and is decided based off of draw and rock-paper-scissors. (if you happen to be playing a deck that beats it) It doesn't depend on how well you play, so long as you aren't dumb. 2. Molten giant is an overpowered card, playing an 8-8 for dirt cheap is simply too strong in the right deck. It is SO easy to safely reduce your health with thing like weapons, life tap and controlling a rush opponent. (If you say that the counter is to not damage then, tell me this. How would it be balanced to be forced to NOT hit any warlock or warrior because maybe they have molten giants.) 3. Molten Giant should be more like all the other giants, almost never to expensive to play at all, but never completely free.
Respond to THAT: Things that I actually think.
Me: The deck is laughably easy to beat.
You: The deck is NOT laughably easy to beat. I got owned by a warrior playing OTK despite playing the perfect counter to it and using a bazillion taunts including 2 senjin, 2 sunwalkers, and a tirrion. (QQ more please)
You: But I also never lose to this deck other than that one time and it's not OP at all !
So if it's not OP, then why tell us your sob story of getting owned despite playing the perfect deck to counter it ? If it wasn't op, and you were playing the perfect counter, does it mean you blow so much that you can't defeat a non-op deck using the its perfect counter ?
And to re-iterate because you obviously chose to selectively ignore my explanation -- warriors armor up because they need to stall until they have their combo. A warrior that doesn't armor up is a warrior that will soon be dead, or a warrior that already has his combo.
As for your points:
1. This deck should be nerfed because it is unfun, and is decided based off of draw and rock-paper-scissors. (if you happen to be playing a deck that beats it) It doesn't depend on how well you play, so long as you aren't dumb.
Same is true of warlock aggro. No aoe board clears, or not enough aoe board clears, and you lose. If i run into a warlock murlock deck and don't draw my consecration by turn 4, i lose. There are plenty of decks that can easily counter the warrior OTK. It depends less on "luck" of running into a deck that directly counters it than just playing people who aren't idiots and know what they are doing. My paladin deck counters it. Mages obviously counters it, so do super warlock aggro, shaman with bloodlust, and priests. That's the nature of card games. Deal with it. L2p.I still don't get wtf you mean by rock/paper/scissors. Isn't this how the game is supposed to work ? Or do you want a deck that does well against every other deck ?
2. Molten giant is an overpowered card, playing an 8-8 for dirt cheap is simply too strong in the right deck. It is SO easy to safely reduce your health with thing like weapons, life tap and controlling a rush opponent. (If you say that the counter is to not damage then, tell me this. How would it be balanced to be forced to NOT hit any warlock or warrior because maybe they have molten giants.)
You get a strong minion for free because you are at 10 hp. At 10 hp, a pyroblast will kill you, and the giant won't save you. An argent commander + blessing of kings combo + truesilver swing will also kill you. And that's assuming nothing else is on the board. an 8/8 for free at 10 health is justifiable reward for the risk involved. I attack warlocks freely because warlocks can't charge the giants for an OTK. Warriors who play this deck telegraph the deck by turn 2. If they play nothing and do nothing but armor up, that's an obvious tell that the OTK is coming. But you wouldn't know that, being how you don't play the deck.
3. Molten Giant should be more like all the other giants, almost never to expensive to play at all, but never completely free.
The conditions for the other giants are 1) cards in hand, and 2) total of all other minions on the board. Those conditions do not come with it the inherent high risk of being near death. having 9 cards in your hand does not mean you are close to death. Having a bunch of total minions on the field does not mean you are close to death -- they could be your minions, or the enemy's minions. The condition of having 10 hp is far riskier than the condition of having more minions or a certain number of cards in your hand. Thus, because the MG's casting condition is riskier, it makes sense that the MG should be allowed to be played for cheaper. Higher risk, higher reward.
So go ahead and insult me. I learned the sticks and stones proverb decades ago. Nothing you say on here would keep me up at night. And to be honest, I don't like insulting you, but the bullshit you say makes no sense, and despite me trying to explain things to you, you refuse to listen and insist on clinging onto semantics in wording and calling me out for "strawmaning" people, when you obviously don't have a fucking clue what that means.
You know why I don't lose to this deck? Same reason you don't. Everyone who played it was AWFUL at it. (armoring up every turn, using shield block for no reason, using CC spells on 1-1s etc.) and control pali with taunts is one of the best decks to face it. Even the player who beat me was really bad, and made a few glaring mistakes but still managed to beat me. I'm not beating it because "I know how to counter it," I'm beating it because people aren't playing it properly and I happen to run a deck that is strong against it.
See. Statements like this is why I think you are ignorant. Do you know why the Warrior armors up and uses shield-block ? It is because during early game, it is extremely unlikely that he has the OTK combo right off the bat. Armoring up allows him to stall the game to keep drawing into his combo. Shield block gives him extra hp to stall AND draws him a card. Why the fuck would shield-block be in the deck, if it is not to be played ? His entire mindset is to STALL, and DRAW CARDS until he draws into his combo. The warrior will only intentionally damage himself when he has the cards needed to play the combo. Otherwise, he risks getting himself low and dying before he has all the cards to OTK you. Going to 10 hp doesn't do him any good unless he has the MGs in his hand.
And if you've NEVER played anyone who was good or know how to really use this deck, then how can you actually judge that the deck or the card is powerful ? Again, I repeat: IT'S ALL IN YOUR HEAD. Everything you've said is theoretical, partly because you don't even have the card to play it. In one breath, you said that the deck is hard to counter. In another, you say that you beat it all the time, but that's only because everyone you play were nubs (despite being in your bracket). BUT IF YOU'VE ONLY PLAYED AGAINST NUBS, THEN HOW DO YOU EVEN KNOW THE DECK IS GOOD ?
Do you see the mental back-flips your mind is doing to insist on the faulty conclusion that the card and deck is OP ? It's either hard to beat, in which case even nubs playing it could beat you, or it's not -- which is suggested by the fact that the both of us don't lose to it often -- meaning it doesn't need to be changed. It can't be both.
I love how you keep clinging on to your bullshit logic to explain away your butthurt for faling to beat this deck. And it surprises me that you understood his bullshit analogy so well but completely failed to comprehend mine and insist on calling everything I say a strawman.
His analogy was to make the point that he doesn't want to work around the deck; and so it should be removed so that no one can play the deck so he can avoid playing against it. Obviously, he doesn't mean that we shouldn't cure polio. My analogy was to prove the point that just because the deck seems strong (the lakers are strong because they are rich), doesn't mean there aren't strategies you can employ to defeat the deck (put in a salary cap to defeat the laker's money), instead of removing the possibility to play the deck all together (banning the lakers from playing basketball) Obviously, I'm not saying we should ban the lakers from playing basketball. Do you understand it now or do I need to hold your hand some more ?
Now, Razor's OTK deck is a very reasonable deck to craft. It only has 1 legendary in the archmage thalnos, and that can easily be replaced. The deck does not rely on the thalnos to kill you. The only expensive INDISPENSIBLE cards that the deck MUST have are the molten giants. You can also make the argument that Brawl is indispensable, but the OTK combo doesn't require brawl and the deck only runs 1 brawl. Everything else is rare/commons. Since you've been so butthurt over the molten giants for so long, I just assumed you had them. If you don't then that would actually make a whole lot of sense to explain your ignorance. You always think something is overpowered until you actually PLAY the card. If you've never played them, then the giants are only OP in your imagination.
So, it's impossible to think something needs to be changed without being "butthurt," eh? I have said several times that this deck doesn't beat me often. I have lost to it a grand total of once. I think it is a broken game mechanic that should be removed, just like hunter OTK.
Nothing you said in that entire wall of text makes any sense, total non sequitur. I can't believe I have to say these things, but...
1. I have never claimed that this deck is unbeatable. 2. I never even implied in any sense that his analogy said he didn't want to cure polio. 3. In your analogy, you said that you suggest putting a luxury tax on the Lakers. That's pretty funny, because that's almost a metaphor for what we'd do. Weakening a small part to take the unfair part of the deck out. If "banning the Lakers from basketball" was a fitting metaphor, we would be removing every key card in the deck. I certainly never implied that you wanted to ban the Lakers from basketball. I was pointing out how blatanly your misrepresented his point to make it easier to attack. 4. Four epics and one to two legendaries legendaries is a lot. Do you think I have 10k dust just sitting around to blow on an internet argument? I have 110 dust as of right now. 5. If you only take indispensable cards, you have a REALLY shitty version of that deck. 6. Because I don't own the card, it's only OP in my imagination..... wow. That makes so much sense. For your information, I have effectively played them a lot via screenshare. Some of my friends and I occasionally sharescreen games to get different perspectives, it really helps you learn as a player. Anyway, one friend just shot up from rank 11 to rank 4 in a day with a Molten giant based warlock control deck (with me co-playing many games). It was stupidly strong, just play minions and control while slowly losing health until.. BAM 9-9 molten giants with taunt and a siphon soul on their minion (or whatever control spells). The card is far too game changing in the right deck with no downsides.
I challenge you to present a case for why Molten Giant is balanced other than just insisting that it "can be beat." Of course it can, any deck/card can be.
LOLOLOL. This shit is a gold-mine of comedy. So let me get this straight. You've only lost ONCE to this deck, EVER ? Hmm that's strange.
This deck is NOT laughably easy to beat, unless you are against a bad opponent. I got beaten by a molten giant OTK despite counterplaying it, and having a deck that is good agaist it. He ate through two sunwalkers, two senjins, Tirion AND 9 healing. I only dealt 6 damage to him and healed him for 3, yet he still got into range. He hit me for 18 with an axe and a worgen easily, then did a molten giant combo to eat through taunts. I survived the giants, but then got taken out by another charging enraged worgen.
So this was your one and only time losing to this deck ? And if you've only lost to it ONCE, and beaten it every other time, then WHY is it not, as you claimed in the above quote, laughably easy to beat ? It is either laughably easy to beat, as I have claimed, and as your experience would also suggest by only losing once, or it is OP and needs to be changed. And in the same post you are telling me that the deck that revolves around MG is not OP, you yet at the end challenge me to prove why it is balanced. What the fuck bro ? Why is it balanced ? Because both you and I have only lost to it once. It is balanced because it's not beating people who know how to counter it. Explain it to me because you are confusing the shit out of me.
And by the way, this quote sounds pretty butt-hurt to me. WAHHH my Tirion can't beat the deck ! Clearly the deck is just overly powerful and has nothing to do with my failure to beat the deck ! Just an FYI. I play Paladin, a fact you already know. I don't have tirrion to act as a taunt buffer, and I still have not lost to this deck other than the first time I saw it one month ago. L2p.
Putting a salary cap on the lakers would = learning to play around the OTK combo. Or, it could mean make the combo harder to pull off, by requiring more cards. Everything I've heard from you suggests that you want to break the possibility of an OTK combo altogether. That's preventing people from playing the OTK combo -- preventing the lakers from playing the game.
The deck does not require any legendaries. It only requires 2 molten giants. That's it. Everything else is fucking dirt cheap. Just admit it. You've never actually played the deck, and thus are clueless on how to beat it. You don't even own the giants that you've cried so many salty tears over.
if you listened to the recent interview from Strifeco, the current #1 ranked legendary player, he states that the #2 player got there with his OTK warr deck and he tends to trade places back and forth with him for the #1 spot. Obviously Strifeco knows how to play against this deck and he is still losing off and on to it, so it can't be as easy to beat as many seem to think it is...
I saw that interview. Strifecro's problem is that he plays late game control druid. Druids don't have weapons to augment their single turn damage, and they play a ton of big beefy minions that allows the warrior to swing into to take the most damage to get into OTK range. He also doesn't run star fire so he lacks the burst to do 15-20 damage in one turn to kill the warrior.
I also watch his twitch stream as he was testing out the OTK warrior deck. He tested it against another legends ranked warlock, and that warlock lost the majority of the beginning games because he had no clue how to play against the deck. I'm not guessing -- I saw their chat, the Warlock wasn't sure what the best strategy was to playing against that deck. Later on, the warlock started to realize that he needed to play ultra-aggro to beat the deck before he could draw the combo, and he beat Strifecro's OTK warrior deck 3 times in a row. The deck is beatable. Learn how to beat it.
Now, before you go out and throw another logical fallacy at me, how about you point out exactly what I'e been ignorant about?
How about the part where you think that my paladin deck is a hard counter to this OTK deck, while ignoring mage with iceblock + pyro ? If a paladin that has to resort to kings x2 + truesilver swing + token minions to kill the warrior in 1 turn is a hard counter, then what the fuck do OTK warriors do when they run into a mage with iceblock or a priest that can just keep them healed ? Just auto concede ? What about the part where you whine about how molten giants are OP in arenas, while ignoring the fact that the molten are only good when you can combine it in combos -- combos that are impossible to draft in the arena's random draft ? PLAY AN MG AND THEN A TAUNT ! You say. How the fuck do I guarantee drafting a taunt with my MG in arena ?
Uh huh, so him comparing not wanting to nerf OTK warriors to not wanting to cure a plague on humanity isn't a strawman ?
No... that would be an analogy... He was using it to express that he doesn't think you should have to do stupid work around, when it could be removed. I'm not saying it's a good point, but it certainly isn't saying that the Lakers should be banned from basketball. (seriously, I can't even imagine who's asshole you pull that one from)
If you want to buy me 50 packs, I'd be happy to play you with the deck, but I don't have the thousands of dust it would take to make all of the cards. However, saying that I have no say in a debate unless I play the deck against you is a bullshit argument, and you should drop that shit right now.
Now, before you go out and throw another logical fallacy at me, how about you point out exactly what I'e been ignorant about? I am a higher rank than you FYI, if you want to try and use that as a point. I don't even have my dream decks either. Also, you seem to forget that the warrior deck does more than sit and wait until it can OTK. If you don't have defense, you'll get nailed by a worgen for 16 so that he doesn't NEED a good Molten combo to kill you. They also run more than enough weapons and control to tide over until turn 7 or so. It may be called an OTK deck, but that's because of it's potential. It can kill you perfectly fine without a single molten giant.
I love how you keep clinging on to your bullshit logic to explain away your butthurt for faling to beat this deck. And it surprises me that you understood his bullshit analogy so well but completely failed to comprehend mine and insist on calling everything I say a strawman.
His analogy was to make the point that he doesn't want to work around the deck; and so it should be removed so that no one can play the deck so he can avoid playing against it. Obviously, he doesn't mean that we shouldn't cure polio. My analogy was to prove the point that just because the deck seems strong (the lakers are strong because they are rich), doesn't mean there aren't strategies you can employ to defeat the deck (put in a salary cap to defeat the laker's money), instead of removing the possibility to play the deck all together (banning the lakers from playing basketball) Obviously, I'm not saying we should ban the lakers from playing basketball. Do you understand it now or do I need to hold your hand some more ?
Now, Razor's OTK deck is a very reasonable deck to craft. It only has 1 legendary in the archmage thalnos, and that can easily be replaced. The deck does not rely on the thalnos to kill you. The only expensive INDISPENSIBLE cards that the deck MUST have are the molten giants. You can also make the argument that Brawl is indispensable, but the OTK combo doesn't require brawl and the deck only runs 1 brawl. Everything else is rare/commons. Since you've been so butthurt over the molten giants for so long, I just assumed you had them. If you don't then that would actually make a whole lot of sense to explain your ignorance. You always think something is overpowered until you actually PLAY the card. If you've never played them, then the giants are only OP in your imagination.
If you lose to this deck, the reason you lost is because you failed to recognize that YOU control when he can play the combo. You attack him willy-nilly without thinking about the consequences.
Actually, thanks to weapons, HE controls how low his health goes by hitting your minions with his face. If you don't play minions, then he just smacks you with them instead.
Nope. Attacking with weapons alone won't get him down to > 15 health if you don't attack him. I had a game where the warrior tried to take himself low by using inner rage on my minion to swing into it -- still wasn't enough because I barely attacked him. Filled my board with token recruits, played very few real minions, and only then did I slowly take him down. If he had weapons out, I don't attack him at all. If you have the cards required to play this deck, I will gladly play you to exhibit how hard that combo is to pull off.
You really should brush up on what strawman is because that word doesn't mean what you think it means. His point was he's just too damn lazy to play around the deck.
That wasn't my point. That was the point you made up for me. Your post is positively dripping with irony. It's really quite funny to watch you make that big a fool of yourself.
Anyway, I'm not too lazy to play around the deck. If it were a fucking JOB I would have the work ethic to play against it. However, this isn't a job, it's a game. I have no FUN playing against it so I choose not to. I don't have FUN playing soccer either, but that doesn't mean I'm too lazy to play it. Do you see the difference?
But that is neither here nor there. I'm not saying to nerf it because I, personally, don't find it fun to play against. I don't find it fun to play against divine spirit combo priests either, but at least that isn't grossly OP. If you leave a large health minion on the board then pass the turn over to him, you deserve to get killed.
The charge molten giant OTK is completely different from every other deck in the game. At least Ice Block/Pyro takes several turns. At least bloodlust or inner fire require minions. No other deck can kill you from full health with no minions on the board. It is for that reason that it stands alone.
And neither iceblock/pyro or the innerfire/divine spirit requires you to be at low health, unless the mage is playing a frostgiants deck. The fact that OTK warriors requires you to be at low health means that the combo is reactive, not proactive. That means that you can only pull off the combo if the opponent allows you to pull off the combo by damaging you. In other words, the warrior's win condition is controlled by his opponent. If you lose to this deck, the reason you lost is because you failed to recognize that YOU control when he can play the combo. You attack him willy-nilly without thinking about the consequences. You gave up your biggest advantage and failed to exploit the deck's biggest weakness. That's why you deserve to lose, because you failed to adapt your strategy to the deck.
I don't really get what you're saying here. You're telling me that you don't want to play around the deck because this game isn't a job so you don't have the work ethic to play around it. But playing around a priest combo deck means you have to play silences in your deck. Playing around a pyroblast mage deck means you have to play with heals in your deck. You'd probably have to avoid dropping too many minions to prevent a flamestrike also. EVERY DECK has a counter, every deck has a weakness, and to beat certain decks, you have to play a certain way. WHY is the OTK combo any different ?
You really should brush up on what strawman is because that word doesn't mean what you think it means. His point was he's just too damn lazy to play around the deck. And because he's too lazy to learn to play against the deck, it should just be removed. News-flash -- it's a strategy card game. That involves playing around your opponents' decks. Deal with it.
You're kidding right? You said, and I quote: "Your suggestion is to just ban the Lakers from playing basketball." How is that not a Strawman? You completely fabricated a point for him to have, and then you exaggerrated that, and then your strung it through a basketball metaphor. I've linked you the definition of the strawman fallacy before, do I need to do it again?
You are basing your whole point on you beating this deck consistently. If the video you linked in the other thread is indication, those warrior players were probably god awful. I don't know in what world saying "I beat this deck six times in a row" wthout even having proofs counts as evidence, but it certainly isn't this one.
Uh huh, so him comparing not wanting to nerf OTK warriors to not wanting to cure a plague on humanity isn't a strawman ? Get a fucking grip on yourself homie. He used a shitty analogy. I gave him a less shitty analogy. That doesn't mean I'm strawmaning him. I wasn't the one who wanted to play the shitty analogy game -- he was. And P.S., if he really wanted to defend himself, he would. If you want to put your money where your mouth is, then make that deck and play me. Otherwise, crawl back into your hole and brush up on the straw-man.
Those videos I linked wasn't made by me. For the past month or so, I've been busy with work so I hadn't had a chance to play this game very much. That changed over the break, so I did nothing for the last week but sit on my ass and play Hearthstone. I went from rank 17 to rank 9 currently. Yea, that's not legend, but I'm not playing angry chickens either. And hey, I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. But unless someone is willing to play the deck against me consistently, I will never find out. You seem to think you know otherwise, so play me.
But looking at your statements and your general ignorance of the game, I doubt it. like seriously, paladin hard-counters this deck ? Please. Mage with iceblock+pyro hard counters OTK warriors. Same with priests and heals. Same with shaman and totems + bloodlust. Same with warlock murlock ultra aggro. The deck has a million counters. Paladin is far from a hard-counter.
And P.S. -- if you are so sure I'm beating bad players, then feel free to make the OTK deck and prove to me how powerful it is. I'm more than willing to play you.
So instead of a bad player then play against a player of potentially roughly equal skill who's never played the deck before and therefore will most likely play it badly. Got it.
It's called put-up or shut-up dude. He says my success is only attributable to playing bad players. Ok, the only way I can prove him wrong is to play him myself. Unless you fancy yourself a good player that is familiar with the OTK deck. Otherwise, this conversation devolves into nothing other than he says she says.
And just one other note. If he isn't familiar with the OTK deck, then doesn't that lack of familiarity disqualify his opinion ?
And P.S. -- if you are so sure I'm beating bad players, then feel free to make the OTK deck and prove to me how powerful it is. I'm more than willing to play you.
Also, you didn't suggest anything. You don't want anything to get changed.
I suggested, many times, that people who lose to this deck, like you, need to L2p. I'll suggest it again -- L2p.
Your analogy really, really sucks by the way. A specific deck-type isn't at all comparable to a scourge against humanity. A better analogy is this: I'm saying the Lakers have an advantage over all other NBA teams, because they have the most money. Because they have the most money, they can hire the best players. My suggestion, then, is to institute a luxury tax, to prevent them from throwing all their money at the best players. Your suggestion is to just ban the Lakers from playing basketball.
WOW, That is the biggest strawman I have seen in my entire life.
"Your suggestion is to just ban the Lakers from playing basketball" I mean.... wow. That's truly something. Also, you didn't suggest anything. You don't want anything to get changed.
His point (not the point you made up for him), is that you shouldn't HAVE to deal with something like that when it could just be removed. I'll admit, the analogy wasn't very good, but that's the point he was making.
Finally, just because you are beating the deck with one of its hardest counters against bad players doesn't mean anything.
You really should brush up on what strawman is because that word doesn't mean what you think it means. His point was he's just too damn lazy to play around the deck. And because he's too lazy to learn to play against the deck, it should just be removed. News-flash -- it's a strategy card game. That involves playing around your opponents' decks. Deal with it.
Okay, heal your opponent to stop his combo...great.
You are aware, though, that to win the match you have to take his health to 0 at SOME POINT, right?
Even if you delay til fatigue kills him, his health will have to get into combo range at some point between 18 and 0. So unless you can take him from nearly 2/3 to dead in 1 turn, then there will come a time that he has low enough health to kill you.
Also, if he is weapon heavy (which he is), and you heal him instead of yourself, what stops him from just smashing you in the face with heroic strikes and killing you that way?
Yes, there are ways to beat it, but it's so stupid that it shouldn't even exist in the first place.
To offer an analogy, I'm saying we should eradicate polio. You can argue we don't need to eradicate polio, because we can just use vaccines to fight it. Okay, sure, yes, but why not just fucking get rid of it entirely?
Lol are you serious right now ? I have played against this deck plenty. I have lost to it once, the first time playing it, and beaten it every single time after. I have a 6 game win-streak against it. Have you even tried PLAYING this deck ? Go put one together and play it yourself and see how "op" it is. I'll even play you and humor you if you want. My last game, I was able to control the board enough to where I took the warrior down from 21 hp -- well before he was in OTK hp range. Basically all my games against that deck plays out like that.
Your analogy really, really sucks by the way. A specific deck-type isn't at all comparable to a scourge against humanity. A better analogy is this: I'm saying the Lakers have an advantage over all other NBA teams, because they have the most money. Because they have the most money, they can hire the best players. My suggestion, then, is to institute a luxury tax, to prevent them from throwing all their money at the best players. Your suggestion is to just ban the Lakers from playing basketball.
I think how people feel about this deck depends on how they feel about OTK in general. I don't think an OTK is necessarily bad, as long as it is 1) difficult to pull off or requires a bunch of cards, and 2) has multiple ways of being countered -- high risk, high reward. Other people think that ANY form of one turn kill from 30 to zero is bad, regardless of potential counter-plays or card combinations required. And considering how one of the many legitimate complaints about this game revolves around its simplicity and lack of depth, I don't think removing a different and novel way of playing the game is the right move. We'll see how Blizzard feels about this in a few weeks. Until then, I still want people to learn how to beat it :)
0
AHHHH I'm recharged from my hangover so I'm back !
I did not put words in your mouth. You stuck your own foot in your mouth. You said it was not OP. You said you only lost to it once. Yet you came to us and cried a sob-story about how this deck owned you despite you playing the perfect counter to the deck. You stuck your foot in your mouth and are full of shit. I can find the quote for you again if you want. Either the deck is not OP, or the deck is OP. You have taken both positions in your ass-backwards attempt to debate this point with me. If the deck is OP, then you should lose to it multiple times. If the deck is not OP, then you suck, because you lost to it playing its direct counter. You don't understand this deck. You don't understand how to counter it. You haven't played it, and you don't even have the molten giants that you have screamed bloody-murder about. You are ignorant.
P.S. I just played another OTK warrior. It got dicey there for a second, he opened up with a worgen/inner-rage on me, but I killed it off and stabilized. he got down to 14 health, and I healed him up with holy light. I then started flooding the board with minions, and he got scarred and started armoring up. I was pissed, so I decided I was going to kill him with fatigue damage. I took him down from 32 HEALTH. The final killing blow was a fatigue draw for 5 damage. Some of you may say that this playing a counter-intuitive game, or playing the game in a way that is "un-fun" or un-intended. But i gotta tell you, Killing an OTK warrior with a fatigue draw was absolutely HILARIOUS.
0
0
So go ahead and insult me. I learned the sticks and stones proverb decades ago. Nothing you say on here would keep me up at night. And to be honest, I don't like insulting you, but the bullshit you say makes no sense, and despite me trying to explain things to you, you refuse to listen and insist on clinging onto semantics in wording and calling me out for "strawmaning" people, when you obviously don't have a fucking clue what that means.
See. Statements like this is why I think you are ignorant. Do you know why the Warrior armors up and uses shield-block ? It is because during early game, it is extremely unlikely that he has the OTK combo right off the bat. Armoring up allows him to stall the game to keep drawing into his combo. Shield block gives him extra hp to stall AND draws him a card. Why the fuck would shield-block be in the deck, if it is not to be played ? His entire mindset is to STALL, and DRAW CARDS until he draws into his combo. The warrior will only intentionally damage himself when he has the cards needed to play the combo. Otherwise, he risks getting himself low and dying before he has all the cards to OTK you. Going to 10 hp doesn't do him any good unless he has the MGs in his hand.
And if you've NEVER played anyone who was good or know how to really use this deck, then how can you actually judge that the deck or the card is powerful ? Again, I repeat: IT'S ALL IN YOUR HEAD. Everything you've said is theoretical, partly because you don't even have the card to play it. In one breath, you said that the deck is hard to counter. In another, you say that you beat it all the time, but that's only because everyone you play were nubs (despite being in your bracket). BUT IF YOU'VE ONLY PLAYED AGAINST NUBS, THEN HOW DO YOU EVEN KNOW THE DECK IS GOOD ?
Do you see the mental back-flips your mind is doing to insist on the faulty conclusion that the card and deck is OP ? It's either hard to beat, in which case even nubs playing it could beat you, or it's not -- which is suggested by the fact that the both of us don't lose to it often -- meaning it doesn't need to be changed. It can't be both.
0
LOLOLOL. This shit is a gold-mine of comedy. So let me get this straight. You've only lost ONCE to this deck, EVER ? Hmm that's strange.
So this was your one and only time losing to this deck ? And if you've only lost to it ONCE, and beaten it every other time, then WHY is it not, as you claimed in the above quote, laughably easy to beat ? It is either laughably easy to beat, as I have claimed, and as your experience would also suggest by only losing once, or it is OP and needs to be changed. And in the same post you are telling me that the deck that revolves around MG is not OP, you yet at the end challenge me to prove why it is balanced. What the fuck bro ? Why is it balanced ? Because both you and I have only lost to it once. It is balanced because it's not beating people who know how to counter it. Explain it to me because you are confusing the shit out of me.
And by the way, this quote sounds pretty butt-hurt to me. WAHHH my Tirion can't beat the deck ! Clearly the deck is just overly powerful and has nothing to do with my failure to beat the deck ! Just an FYI. I play Paladin, a fact you already know. I don't have tirrion to act as a taunt buffer, and I still have not lost to this deck other than the first time I saw it one month ago. L2p.
Putting a salary cap on the lakers would = learning to play around the OTK combo. Or, it could mean make the combo harder to pull off, by requiring more cards. Everything I've heard from you suggests that you want to break the possibility of an OTK combo altogether. That's preventing people from playing the OTK combo -- preventing the lakers from playing the game.
The deck does not require any legendaries. It only requires 2 molten giants. That's it. Everything else is fucking dirt cheap. Just admit it. You've never actually played the deck, and thus are clueless on how to beat it. You don't even own the giants that you've cried so many salty tears over.
0
I saw that interview. Strifecro's problem is that he plays late game control druid. Druids don't have weapons to augment their single turn damage, and they play a ton of big beefy minions that allows the warrior to swing into to take the most damage to get into OTK range. He also doesn't run star fire so he lacks the burst to do 15-20 damage in one turn to kill the warrior.
I also watch his twitch stream as he was testing out the OTK warrior deck. He tested it against another legends ranked warlock, and that warlock lost the majority of the beginning games because he had no clue how to play against the deck. I'm not guessing -- I saw their chat, the Warlock wasn't sure what the best strategy was to playing against that deck. Later on, the warlock started to realize that he needed to play ultra-aggro to beat the deck before he could draw the combo, and he beat Strifecro's OTK warrior deck 3 times in a row. The deck is beatable. Learn how to beat it.
0
How about the part where you think that my paladin deck is a hard counter to this OTK deck, while ignoring mage with iceblock + pyro ? If a paladin that has to resort to kings x2 + truesilver swing + token minions to kill the warrior in 1 turn is a hard counter, then what the fuck do OTK warriors do when they run into a mage with iceblock or a priest that can just keep them healed ? Just auto concede ? What about the part where you whine about how molten giants are OP in arenas, while ignoring the fact that the molten are only good when you can combine it in combos -- combos that are impossible to draft in the arena's random draft ? PLAY AN MG AND THEN A TAUNT ! You say. How the fuck do I guarantee drafting a taunt with my MG in arena ?
0
I love how you keep clinging on to your bullshit logic to explain away your butthurt for faling to beat this deck. And it surprises me that you understood his bullshit analogy so well but completely failed to comprehend mine and insist on calling everything I say a strawman.
His analogy was to make the point that he doesn't want to work around the deck; and so it should be removed so that no one can play the deck so he can avoid playing against it. Obviously, he doesn't mean that we shouldn't cure polio. My analogy was to prove the point that just because the deck seems strong (the lakers are strong because they are rich), doesn't mean there aren't strategies you can employ to defeat the deck (put in a salary cap to defeat the laker's money), instead of removing the possibility to play the deck all together (banning the lakers from playing basketball) Obviously, I'm not saying we should ban the lakers from playing basketball. Do you understand it now or do I need to hold your hand some more ?
Now, Razor's OTK deck is a very reasonable deck to craft. It only has 1 legendary in the archmage thalnos, and that can easily be replaced. The deck does not rely on the thalnos to kill you. The only expensive INDISPENSIBLE cards that the deck MUST have are the molten giants. You can also make the argument that Brawl is indispensable, but the OTK combo doesn't require brawl and the deck only runs 1 brawl. Everything else is rare/commons. Since you've been so butthurt over the molten giants for so long, I just assumed you had them. If you don't then that would actually make a whole lot of sense to explain your ignorance. You always think something is overpowered until you actually PLAY the card. If you've never played them, then the giants are only OP in your imagination.
0
Nope. Attacking with weapons alone won't get him down to > 15 health if you don't attack him. I had a game where the warrior tried to take himself low by using inner rage on my minion to swing into it -- still wasn't enough because I barely attacked him. Filled my board with token recruits, played very few real minions, and only then did I slowly take him down. If he had weapons out, I don't attack him at all. If you have the cards required to play this deck, I will gladly play you to exhibit how hard that combo is to pull off.
0
And neither iceblock/pyro or the innerfire/divine spirit requires you to be at low health, unless the mage is playing a frostgiants deck. The fact that OTK warriors requires you to be at low health means that the combo is reactive, not proactive. That means that you can only pull off the combo if the opponent allows you to pull off the combo by damaging you. In other words, the warrior's win condition is controlled by his opponent. If you lose to this deck, the reason you lost is because you failed to recognize that YOU control when he can play the combo. You attack him willy-nilly without thinking about the consequences. You gave up your biggest advantage and failed to exploit the deck's biggest weakness. That's why you deserve to lose, because you failed to adapt your strategy to the deck.
I don't really get what you're saying here. You're telling me that you don't want to play around the deck because this game isn't a job so you don't have the work ethic to play around it. But playing around a priest combo deck means you have to play silences in your deck. Playing around a pyroblast mage deck means you have to play with heals in your deck. You'd probably have to avoid dropping too many minions to prevent a flamestrike also. EVERY DECK has a counter, every deck has a weakness, and to beat certain decks, you have to play a certain way. WHY is the OTK combo any different ?
0
Uh huh, so him comparing not wanting to nerf OTK warriors to not wanting to cure a plague on humanity isn't a strawman ? Get a fucking grip on yourself homie. He used a shitty analogy. I gave him a less shitty analogy. That doesn't mean I'm strawmaning him. I wasn't the one who wanted to play the shitty analogy game -- he was. And P.S., if he really wanted to defend himself, he would. If you want to put your money where your mouth is, then make that deck and play me. Otherwise, crawl back into your hole and brush up on the straw-man.
Those videos I linked wasn't made by me. For the past month or so, I've been busy with work so I hadn't had a chance to play this game very much. That changed over the break, so I did nothing for the last week but sit on my ass and play Hearthstone. I went from rank 17 to rank 9 currently. Yea, that's not legend, but I'm not playing angry chickens either. And hey, I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. But unless someone is willing to play the deck against me consistently, I will never find out. You seem to think you know otherwise, so play me.
But looking at your statements and your general ignorance of the game, I doubt it. like seriously, paladin hard-counters this deck ? Please. Mage with iceblock+pyro hard counters OTK warriors. Same with priests and heals. Same with shaman and totems + bloodlust. Same with warlock murlock ultra aggro. The deck has a million counters. Paladin is far from a hard-counter.
0
It's called put-up or shut-up dude. He says my success is only attributable to playing bad players. Ok, the only way I can prove him wrong is to play him myself. Unless you fancy yourself a good player that is familiar with the OTK deck. Otherwise, this conversation devolves into nothing other than he says she says.
And just one other note. If he isn't familiar with the OTK deck, then doesn't that lack of familiarity disqualify his opinion ?
0
And P.S. -- if you are so sure I'm beating bad players, then feel free to make the OTK deck and prove to me how powerful it is. I'm more than willing to play you.
I suggested, many times, that people who lose to this deck, like you, need to L2p. I'll suggest it again -- L2p.
0
You really should brush up on what strawman is because that word doesn't mean what you think it means. His point was he's just too damn lazy to play around the deck. And because he's too lazy to learn to play against the deck, it should just be removed. News-flash -- it's a strategy card game. That involves playing around your opponents' decks. Deal with it.
0
Lol are you serious right now ? I have played against this deck plenty. I have lost to it once, the first time playing it, and beaten it every single time after. I have a 6 game win-streak against it. Have you even tried PLAYING this deck ? Go put one together and play it yourself and see how "op" it is. I'll even play you and humor you if you want. My last game, I was able to control the board enough to where I took the warrior down from 21 hp -- well before he was in OTK hp range. Basically all my games against that deck plays out like that.
Your analogy really, really sucks by the way. A specific deck-type isn't at all comparable to a scourge against humanity. A better analogy is this: I'm saying the Lakers have an advantage over all other NBA teams, because they have the most money. Because they have the most money, they can hire the best players. My suggestion, then, is to institute a luxury tax, to prevent them from throwing all their money at the best players. Your suggestion is to just ban the Lakers from playing basketball.
0
I think how people feel about this deck depends on how they feel about OTK in general. I don't think an OTK is necessarily bad, as long as it is 1) difficult to pull off or requires a bunch of cards, and 2) has multiple ways of being countered -- high risk, high reward. Other people think that ANY form of one turn kill from 30 to zero is bad, regardless of potential counter-plays or card combinations required. And considering how one of the many legitimate complaints about this game revolves around its simplicity and lack of depth, I don't think removing a different and novel way of playing the game is the right move. We'll see how Blizzard feels about this in a few weeks. Until then, I still want people to learn how to beat it :)