Hearthpwn

If you bounce this with Shadow Step, does the effect remain on the initial target(s)?

Quote from whoelsebutAndrew >>

I beat control warrior every time with jade nzoth rouge 

Quote from Wise_guy02 >>

Not played much but Mill Rouge

I wish I knew who +1'd this.  I would like to know if you've gotten any mileage out of the deck!  :-)

Quote from Scipio_77 >>

Quote from Spritelight >>

Newsflash: Combo beats control

I keep queing up vs druids with my controlpriest, you sit there trying desperately to keep the board clear and stay at max hps....eventually a few minions stick to the board and you get bursted down from 30. GG WP

Play aggro vs murloc pally.

Let's just change the card to read "win the game", then. Your logic would excuse that too.

 And no, I don't think the deck is unbalanced. I think the card is silly.

 

 

@ OP - First, thank you very much for the write-up.  I enjoy reading these when you put them together.  I just wanted to comment on two of the cards that were put in the Savagery Tier:

Pit Snake It seems to me that this card is meant to sure up Rogue against cards like Shielded Minibot, Zombie Chow, Northshire Cleric, Tunnel Trogg, Flame Imp, and Mana Wyrm - all great 1 drops from the other classes.  Dropped behind a taunt, it may be passable for the late game as well.  Am I missing something here?

Jungle Moonkin It seems to me that for druid, this is a great card.  Let's take a look at what we have available:

1. Jungle Moonkin + Moonfire for 3 to 6 damage on T4.
2. Jungle Moonkin + Living Roots for 4 damage on T5.
3. Jungle Moonkin + Wrath for 3-5 damage on T6 with the ability to draw a card if for 3.
4. Jungle Moonkin + Swipe for 6+3 damage on T8 - which is brutal for Aggro, Tempo, and the almighty Secret Paladin.
5. Jungle Moonkin + Starfall for 7 Direct or 4 AOE damage on T9.
6. Jungle Moonkin + Starfire for 7 Direct Damage and draw a card on T10.

With the Druid's ability to ramp, all of these can easily come 1-2 turns earlier.  This card, to me, seems to effectively give you answers to the opponent's board on-curve.  Or am I missing something here, as well?

One of these days, I will not only hit legend but I will do it with MY own deck!  I would appreciate any feed-back on my thoughts, above.  Thank you.

Since bnet is down, I took a stroll over here https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/3v0a1v/whats_the_joke_about_deck_sluts/ and found some serious game design conversation happening.  Enjoy!

Quote from Strika78 >>

Well, it's not right, really. I understand that all "end of turn" events trigger simultaneously, but it should be either heal first or damage first, they mustn't coincide in time. Truesilver vs exp trap is not a correct example, because the heal goes first (i.e. the attacker gets his effect first), and only then the trap hits. That's why you survive. Just like that, there is an order of deathrattles, etc. In my case, I think, there probably should be an order also. For example, if the totem had less life and was killed by Baron's effect, would it still heal his hero? I'm not sure. But if the "same phase" logic applies, then totem's death wouldn't have prevented its "end of turn" effect, so the 0 hp totem would heal the 0 hp hero. Dunno if it's fair...

Quote from viathevoid >>

Quote from s2mikey >>

Quote from Kashjnaradaaq >>

Take a note of each game you lose. Thats what I do.

T.Mage - Turn 7 - Couldnt keep up with tempo/lack of early game
S.Paladin - Turn 7 - Lack of aoe
R.Druid - Turn 6 - Lack of early game/taunt walls
xxx - Turn 5 - Lost board contest cause of weak/lack of 5 drops

etc

It will give you the exact reason on what's sub optimal after spreadsheeting a couple of days.
Let's say you lost 65% of your lost games before turn 8. Maybe that Ragnaros doesn't deserve his place at this moment etc

Then you modify the deck, or if that's not really possible, you just park it altogether till current meta strays away from whatever wrecks your face.

Great idea....but every one of your listed causes of a loss are related to card draw and luck.  Nothing you could have done about any of it, unless I missed something?  That's the problem here.  I always try to determine what I did to cause a loss and many times it was simply that I didn't have the cards I needed when I needed them.  Not much chance of "skilling" my way out of that...right?

No, that's called bad deck building.

^^^^^^^  This  ^^^^^^^

Honestly, your reply to very good suggestions speaks mostly to an issue of mind-set more than anything else.

Quote from wg15 >>

Quote from Scipio_77 >>

Quote from wg15 >>

I still have not managed to lose to the aggro version of the Paladin.

 

Everyone who even remotely understands how a card game works knows that this is nonsense. Even if playing a hard counter.

But posts like these crop on every discussion on a deck. GP threads are (were) filled with people who never lost to GP, aggro whines were filled with replies people who had never lost to a facehunter and so forth.

Either you people play at rank 19 and induce theory from single matches, or you flat out lie. Either way, you should all be ignored as authorites on the subject.

Sad to say it, but it's the damn truth. I am myself playing a midrange Paladin since last season on ladder and I am tracking my games. The midrange version is thousand times stronger. If you can't play around their one strength...how are you acting on ladder at all? It's not even a secret paladin, as you know every secret once MC is played. You don't know which secret is played against a hunter or a mage. Even in the archetypes there are different versions playing different secrets. But all stronger secrets from the paladin are played. And you can easily influence the outcoming of the MC. Once he is history the game is won. Everything else in the deck is just laughable at. If they manage to get early Secretkeepers pushing up it could start dangerous. Beside that? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Once again, that's why the secret paladin has a low winrate at tournaments.

Agreed.  I can say that playing both the Aggro and MR versions of Secret Pally - they are both strong.  However, I can lose to any other class on the ladder.  I say that with one exception - I have not lost a single game to a Warlock.  I am not sure why, but every game I have played one I sat there with big eyes knowing how hard I was about to punch that Warlock and knowing it was going to hurt.  "Hit it hard!  Hit it very hard!"

Oh - In BETA, I started with Face-Warrior...  >.<  That didn't work out, so well.  It was so bad, it put me off playing warrior all the way until now.  Although, I just found that I actually enjoy CW.  I seem to have gravitated toward a Controllish-Hand-Paladin type deck, though.  I love it, for some odd reason.  As the OP said...its fun to turn the game around, punish the opponent and follow it with a "Well Met" or "I Am Sorry."  LOL

Quote from TheWamts >>

Quote from steveaus >>

Quote from Tahladnas >>

Well, i'm generally a person who prefer skill-based gameplay rather than games which are mainly dictated by RNG.

I also like to outsmart my opponent with mind games and smart bluffs. I don't believe that your starting hand should be a major factor in deciding the outcome of the match and your deck should be able to come back from behind based on the overall quality instead of pure topdecking luck.

So, my favourite decks are Secretdin and Tempo Mage.

 

From now on and into forever, I hereby decree that any and all sarcasm on the Internet must only be posted in comic sans text.

And since there's no comic sans on this broken site, there's no sarcasm allowed here.

I LOL'D...Alot!  LOL

For the record - The Eve Online player-base caught CCP's attention and it made a difference.  But don't just take my word for it:  http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/12/how-virtual-world-edge-of-apocalypse-and-back-again

So - I have been thinking about this quite a bit, since I saw that they will be completely destroying an arch-type by making a card completely unplayable.  There seems to be copious amounts of joy that Blizzard has decided to completely destroy Warsong Commander.  You don't have to look far to find what I'm talking about.

However, I would like to think that there are quite a few players out there who completely disagree with this nerf.  It was 2 minutes ago that Ben Brode was telling the community that he thought PW was good for the game...now this.

Personally, I don't even like playing the warrior class.  It just doesn't suit me.  However, I can appreciate the PW arch-type.  Furthermore, I found it refreshing that there was a fairly complicated combo-deck, that when played well could really dominate.  Finally, it does have counters.  I beat PW at least 50% of the time.  If they were going to nerf PW, there were numerous suggestions on these very forums.  I'm pretty miffed by the way Blizzard is handling this, to the point where I decided to pick PW up and start playing it myself...and that's where you come in!

Are you ticked-off at the way Blizzard has handled, not just this nerf but past nerfs as well?  Then I suggest we all take a play from the Eve Online play-book.  When CCP (Eve's devs) decided greed was good in-lieu of good game design, the player-base staged a Week of Rage.  They protested by non-stop attacking an high-profile space object in an area popular to the community.  While there is nothing in-game for us to shoot with space lasers, there is something we can do - to protest this crap.

I suggest - every player ticked off by this nerf and previous nerfs, who is able to, pick up PW and play it on ladder for the entirety of the rest of this season.  Saturate the ladder.  Everyone - Get in Here!  Before they kill it - make'em choke on it.

That is all!

Quote from nocontrol1111 >>

Quote from Mysticjbyrd >>

Quote from tommytruck >>

Quote from Mysticjbyrd >>

Quote from tommytruck >>

"Non-Interactive" doesn't really bother me.  As someone who played competitive sports, I am not of the opinion that I owe my opponent the opportunity to score.  Blow-outs are perfectly fine, in my opinion.

Yah, you do....  You have ensure both teams have the same goal setup.

Since both players start with the same 30 life total, consider that point covered.

Then you have a very narrow view of what the goal is.

Is the goal not to reduce the other player's life from 30 to 0 or am I missing something?

my point exactly - thank you :-)