EPTNew Expansion: Whispers of the Old Gods - Page 14
| Forum Index > Hearthstone General |
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
| ||
|
TropicalHaze
Finland59 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:21 Nakara wrote: No Brode said in the livestream those 16 cards would interact with C'thun alone and the other old gods will have their own unique mechanics. I think what Habitus was trying to say is that we don't know if the said 16 cards all buff C'thun. There can be tons of other types of interactions with C'thun and the "followers". | ||
|
itchiko
0 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:49 TropicalHaze wrote: I think what Habitus was trying to say is that we don't know if the said 16 cards all buff C'thun. There can be tons of other types of interactions with C'thun and the "followers". I hope some of those interactions will help pull C'thun out of the deck or at least on top of the deck. Otherwise I fear it will end up like Reno an awesome neutral tool for everyone that will end up being only used in Warlock juts because of how important is the the consistence of card draw when you are basing your whole strategy on one card. | ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AYxkdUO.jpg) Also new stuff - ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dy1Bq2a.png) | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:36 NewSunshine wrote: I agree, Secret Paladin's biggest threat isn't the Mysterious Challenger, it's actually their bulletproof early game. Broadly speaking, a good opening hand is the most important thing in Hearthstone, and even though Secret Pally isn't a face deck it can generally have you down to 20 health by turn 3. But, we know Secret Paladin has the one-two punch, transitioning into Challenger-Boom-Tirion for the late game. If all the pieces are put together, not much can stop a Secret Paladin. But, if a deck has the early game to contest the Secret Paladin, Eater of Secrets will keep them in the game even when Mysterious Challenger shows up. It won't outright win the game, but it can be a huge piece of it. Being able to break through Freeze Mage, Tempo Mage, and Hunter Secrets in general is enough to justify its use, as long as Secret Paladin is a thing. Basically, the concern I have is: if you play the kind of deck that can challenge Paladin's early game, that's got to be a really tight and well-crafted aggro or midrange deck, yes? If it is, then isn't it going to really suffer from running a 2/4 for 4? It seems like the exact deck that wants this card is going to suffer disproportionately from having it. I do think it has the potential to see use in Standard if people desperately need answers to Secrets, but history seems to suggest that people prefer to just run better decks over running most targeted answers. BGH is the only targeted answer that comes to mind, and it happens to be a perfectly serviceable minion in addition to generating crazy card and tempo advantage. I'm not certain that any card can become an acceptable bit of hate tech otherwise. | ||
|
sacrilegious
Canada863 Posts
On March 15 2016 02:12 Acritter wrote: From my experience playing against Secret Paladin, the reason it's so frustrating to deal with is that you need a considerable board as well as a lot of strong removal in order to handle it. Relatively few decks can afford to run and commit all of that, especially against the strong Paladin openers. It only gets worse with these disgusting new builds that just toss in every endgame threat they can find along with Shielded Minibot, Muster, and Piloted Shredder and pray they get good draws. Even if you do play an Eater of Secrets against the full tree, you're going to need to clear the 6/6, all the little dudes, and whatever other threats the Paladin puts down. I really do think that Avenge and Piloted Shredder are the two big cards fueling the deck, when it gets right down to it. I mean, apart from the obvious. But yeah, aggro decks can generally just die. They're the most luck-based decks in the game by far, and I want them gone. Funny, I say the same thing about greedy control decks and anything Reno, who get away with either doing nothing for the first 3 turns, luck out by getting their EXACT early game cards (*cough CW fiery win axe armor smith acolyte bash), or get the exact board clear by "LUCKING OUT" having it of 6 or 7 out of 30 cards drawn (*cough brawl, auchanai circle, swipe). Don't like aggro? Tell Blizz to change their quest system, and make some mechanic other than taunt or heal be anti-face On March 15 2016 03:36 NewSunshine wrote: I agree, Secret Paladin's biggest threat isn't the Mysterious Challenger, it's actually their bulletproof early game. Broadly speaking, a good opening hand is the most important thing in Hearthstone, and even though Secret Pally isn't a face deck it can generally have you down to 20 health by turn 3. But, we know Secret Paladin has the one-two punch, transitioning into Challenger-Boom-Tirion for the late game. If all the pieces are put together, not much can stop a Secret Paladin. But, if a deck has the early game to contest the Secret Paladin, Eater of Secrets will keep them in the game even when Mysterious Challenger shows up. It won't outright win the game, but it can be a huge piece of it. Being able to break through Freeze Mage, Tempo Mage, and Hunter Secrets in general is enough to justify its use, as long as Secret Paladin is a thing. Wrong... try making Secret Paladin with all of those cards but take out both MC's. That card is by far the biggest threat and swinger of tempo. All of the early game of minibot, juggler, and muster have been in mid range paladin before, mid game shredder and belcher, and dr 7 and tirion the same deal. What is, and only is the difference? Secrets and MC. Secrets alone (minus maybe avenge) sucked, but MC broke it. You should know by now the combination of a 6/6 body the ability to thin the deck and play up to 5 secrets is the problem. But hey, instead of Blizz adjusting the stupidly broken mechanic or stats of MC, they decide to just print something as stupid as Eater (which btw isn't that good imo), but simply a really bad tech card that ONLY hard counters any Mage that plays secrets and Secret Paladin | ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
On March 15 2016 11:41 sacrilegious wrote: Funny, I say the same thing about greedy control decks and anything Reno, who get away with either doing nothing for the first 3 turns, luck out by getting their EXACT early game cards (*cough CW fiery win axe armor smith acolyte bash), or get the exact board clear by "LUCKING OUT" having it of 6 or 7 out of 30 cards drawn (*cough brawl, auchanai circle, swipe). Don't like aggro? Tell Blizz to change their quest system, and make some mechanic other than taunt or heal be anti-face Wrong... try making Secret Paladin with all of those cards but take out both MC's. That card is by far the biggest threat and swinger of tempo. All of the early game of minibot, juggler, and muster have been in mid range paladin before, mid game shredder and belcher, and dr 7 and tirion the same deal. What is, and only is the difference? Secrets and MC. Secrets alone (minus maybe avenge) sucked, but MC broke it. You should know by now the combination of a 6/6 body the ability to thin the deck and play up to 5 secrets is the problem. But hey, instead of Blizz adjusting the stupidly broken mechanic or stats of MC, they decide to just print something as stupid as Eater (which btw isn't that good imo), but simply a really bad tech card that ONLY hard counters any Mage that plays secrets and Secret Paladin I don't know if you remember but back in the late days of BRM when Patron was dropping in usage on ladder Midrange paladin was really really really strong in the top ranks and pretty much the only reason it wasn't THE deck to beat was because Patron hard countered it and it was generally better to focus on beating Patron. Sure MC is strong I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to deny that but you are heavily over estimating its importance. If you play MC without the strong early game you've generally lost in the majority of games. Its MC in combination with the strong early game that closes out games. However if you look at games where you have the strong early game but don't draw MC but do draw into the Dr 7 / Dr 8 / Dr 8 you generally still win even without MC. Midrange Paladin is a strong deck. However there is no reason to run it when you can run Secret paladin which is basically the same deck. | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
On March 15 2016 11:41 sacrilegious wrote: Funny, I say the same thing about greedy control decks and anything Reno, who get away with either doing nothing for the first 3 turns, luck out by getting their EXACT early game cards (*cough CW fiery win axe armor smith acolyte bash), or get the exact board clear by "LUCKING OUT" having it of 6 or 7 out of 30 cards drawn (*cough brawl, auchanai circle, swipe). Don't like aggro? Tell Blizz to change their quest system, and make some mechanic other than taunt or heal be anti-face It's difficult to take you seriously when you use "or" as liberally as that. Consider what's different: with every deck, you mulligan for your early-game cards. For Warrior, that means you go for weapons, Armorsmith, Fierce Monkey, or whatever else you might be running. In Warrior decks, this generally totals up to about 10 cards in your deck. After mulligan, you have a very high chance of having those cards. In contrast, the way aggro decks tend to win is through perfect curves. Perfect curves don't require random mulligans for "any combination of." They require you to have the exact set of cards on the exact right turns in sequence. So, from this simple example, you can see that control decks tend to be built for higher RNG resistance. That's not even considering that you said "early game OR board clears," which at that point is a desperate plea for the control deck to have avoided drawing any part of around half of their deck. Also consider that aggro decks tend to favor cards like Knife Juggler, Avenge, and Piloted Shredder, while control decks tend to favor Brawl+hard removal. Aggro is, in fact, a quite luck-oriented strategy. The way it works is to try and get the overall odds in its favor and then play tons of fast games. Control, by contrast, tries to get access to all of its resources and deploy them as efficiently as possible. I prefer the version which requires thought and consideration. | ||
|
Habitus
United Kingdom120 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:49 TropicalHaze wrote: I think what Habitus was trying to say is that we don't know if the said 16 cards all buff C'thun. There can be tons of other types of interactions with C'thun and the "followers". Yes though i also missed livestream and what i read didn't mention only C'thun so thought even if all buff maybe not all C'thun. Atleast now i know only C'thun is affected, but a destroy/draw or even a debuff minion (ie C'thun in opponents deck gets -2/-2 and such) is still a interaction. | ||
|
itchiko
0 Posts
On March 15 2016 14:38 Acritter wrote: It's difficult to take you seriously when you use "or" as liberally as that. Consider what's different: with every deck, you mulligan for your early-game cards. For Warrior, that means you go for weapons, Armorsmith, Fierce Monkey, or whatever else you might be running. In Warrior decks, this generally totals up to about 10 cards in your deck. After mulligan, you have a very high chance of having those cards. In contrast, the way aggro decks tend to win is through perfect curves. Perfect curves don't require random mulligans for "any combination of." They require you to have the exact set of cards on the exact right turns in sequence. So, from this simple example, you can see that control decks tend to be built for higher RNG resistance. That's not even considering that you said "early game OR board clears," which at that point is a desperate plea for the control deck to have avoided drawing any part of around half of their deck. Also consider that aggro decks tend to favor cards like Knife Juggler, Avenge, and Piloted Shredder, while control decks tend to favor Brawl+hard removal. Aggro is, in fact, a quite luck-oriented strategy. The way it works is to try and get the overall odds in its favor and then play tons of fast games. Control, by contrast, tries to get access to all of its resources and deploy them as efficiently as possible. I prefer the version which requires thought and consideration. I am pretty sure that what you described here are Mid-range deck not aggro ones. Aggro decks are decks with an extremely low curves (very few cards over 3 manas in general) with a very simplistic game plan: engage in a race to kill you before you can kill them. The only competitive example in the current meta is the Aggro Shaman but you can find on the ladder some face hunter/aggro pally (no secret in those usually),etc.. Mid-range decks are deck that focusing on getting the board early and then use the control of the board to snowball an advantage. Those types of deck are currently dominating the meta with: Secret Paladin, Combo druid, Zoolock. Aggro are in general the more stable and less draw dependent decks (because the deck is entirely low mana drops). But because it has such a focus strategy it is generally hard countered by certain deck and easy win against other so the luck is more on the pairing system than anything else. Mid-range are indeed dependent on hitting there mana curve correctly but if the deck is correctly build and you are Mulliganing for your curve it is usually pretty stable only failing to hit the curve in one match out 5-6 usually. Paladin secret is slightly more unstable that most Mid-range because of the presence of the secrets but even then the last versions of that deck are actually reasonably consistent. And while Mid-range do play some RNG heavy cards like Shredder/Knife Juggler. It is not because RNG is fun (spoiler: it is not) or even because it is part of the overall strategy but because those cards offers a way bigger values than any non RNG replacement making them auto include sadly. So while I am all for reduction of RNG in the deck (and I am pretty sure we will not be the only one) I do not agree that Mid-range deck are the most luck-based (that would actually go to something like Tempo Mage and then combo deck that needs to align several cards in the hand at the same time like Patron). And I especially do not agree that they should be removed: Mid-range is the bread and butter of Hearthstone Meta. And they are as needed as the other types of deck: aggro/control/combo/fatigue etc... | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
Midrange decks tend to have two major categories: the decks that are trying to push through damage before their opponent can answer, and the decks that are trying to put down threats to force out bad trades and then take the win. These decks are so completely different that it's misleading to call both of them midrange. For example, compare classic Midrange Paladin to Secret Paladin. Classic Midrange tends to use the strong early game to get a stable position, Quartermaster and Murloc Paladin plays to create strong boards out of nowhere, and Equality/Consecration plays to recover from bad positions. At every chance, it's trying to be efficient, but isn't quite a control deck because its efficiency is based on smart and steady application of pressure. In stark contrast, Secret Paladin focuses on building up a strong board so it can hit face, playing big threats later so they can hit face, and burning all its Secrets to keep hitting face. As a shorthand to understand this concept: if the game stalls out and goes long, which deck gets stronger and which deck gets weaker? It's almost always the classic Midrange Paladin that gets stronger, and almost always Secret Paladin which gets weaker (depending on the matchup). Also to consider: when Tirion dies, which deck is more likely to use the weapon on face, and which is more likely to use it as three incredibly valuable removal spells? So, we've already established that there are different kinds of midrange. I'd argue that the aggressive kind is more RNG-dependent than the controlling kind, for the same reasons I listed earlier. Now, about pure aggro decks. You've already noted, quite accurately, that RNG cards tend to be very powerful. This is exactly why aggro decks tend to use them. Imp-losion from Zoo is a great example, as is Knife Juggler. You have noted Aggro Shaman as a deck; Crackle is a staple. If we want to go more old-school, consider Always Huffer. But even this ignores a more fundamental issue: whether or not the other deck can stabilize relies extremely strongly on whether the aggro deck draws into its finishers at the right time. I'll give a personal example. I used to play a lot of Mech Mage back in the day, and my games weren't just dependent on me getting some kind of dream Mechwarper opening or some perfect Blastmage RNG, but mostly on whether I drew Antonidas, Boom, and my burn spells at the right time. I won a stupid amount of games just by topdecking a Fireball for lethal when my opponent was on the verge of stabilizing, and in fact, I would say that most of the games I won were won on the basis of drawing the right cards rather than playing intelligently. This is nothing like how my games with control decks have gone, where my victories tend to depend on very clever use of resources (e.g. deciding when to force draws and when to limit draws, when to use weapons versus spells to clear, when to put how much onto the board in order to get the exact right kind of removal, which removal to spend for tempo and which to save for value). There is always some amount of luck involved, and I don't want to imply there isn't. But from my own experience playing a wide variety of decks, decks with aggressive plans (whether you want to call them aggro or midrange) are much more luck-dependent than decks with controlling plans. | ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
![[image loading]](http://hearthstone.judgehype.com/screenshots/news2016/70T.jpg) | ||
|
Roblin
Sweden948 Posts
| ||
|
itchiko
0 Posts
a 4/10 for 4 mana seems absurdly strong. certainly a good reason to plays C'thun synergy deck in Druid. But and it is a big but: If no other 1/2/3 drops that the 2 we know of, boost C'thun attack it will will be really difficult to have on Curve. So for the T4 it will still probably be a Yeti for 80-90% of decks (of course more earl;y drop boosting C'thun might come up later and then we will have to fully reevaluate). That means that for the purposes of ramping this is a Yeti with the potential of being stronger if played on later turn. That is still really really strong and may be enough to warrant play C'thun synergy in Druid. I mean even with jsut the 4 C'thun cards revealed so far. It will be a consideration we probably needs 1 or 2 decent C'thun cards for it to be a deck. Edit: The first card since C'thun (which is hard to evaluate so far) I see that seems at the power level I expect from a a new expansion. Good to see the previews finally showing some potential meta defining cards.. | ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
| ||
|
Roblin
Sweden948 Posts
On March 16 2016 03:40 Drazerk wrote: My biggest gripe is what are the Klaaxi doing with Cthun. They're Yshaarj's minions! Yshaarj owes C'thun some money after a bet, they decided to settle with having some of Yshaarj's minions go on a forced internship with C'thun for 2 years (in the future some will have to stick around just so wild can keep their cards, wild format is slavery!). so far every single one of them have filed at least 1 complaint to HR about C'thun staring at them in the office for uncomfortably long amounts of time. | ||
|
RevenantSC2
United States0 Posts
On March 16 2016 04:07 Roblin wrote: Yshaarj owes C'thun some money after a bet, they decided to settle with having some of Yshaarj's minions go on a forced internship with C'thun for 2 years (in the future some will have to stick around just so wild can keep their cards, wild format is slavery!). so far every single one of them have filed at least 1 complaint to HR about C'thun staring at them in the office for uncomfortably long amounts of time. Thanks for that, I lol'd. C'thun bad boss confirmed :D | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
1. Coin 2-drop, C'thun to 8 2. 2-drop, C'thun to 10 3. Something 4. This dude Easy. 1. Something 2. Coin 3-drop, C'thun to 7 3. 3-drop, C'thun to 9 4. This dude, C'thun to 11 at end of turn And the combo: 1. Something 2. 2-drop, C'thun to 8 3. 3-drop, C'thun to 9 4. This dude, C'thun to 10 at end of turn I mean, past the first these are all vulnerable to disruption, but it's not incredibly unlikely. If we get more early buff cards, I think it's very reasonable to expect C'thun to be reliably at 10 on turn 4. And even if these are the only two cards that will ever augment the obvious intended synergy between C'thun and his followers, it's still going to happen more games than not. At least, I think the math works out this way, and I don't particularly feel like going through the probabilistic calculations right now. | ||
|
The_Masked_Shrimp
425 Posts
I am not very pumped that they are wasting class card slots for C'thun synergies | ||
|
itchiko
0 Posts
On March 16 2016 06:38 Acritter wrote: I think it might not be all that difficult to get this card to work on-curve. Let's look at a couple possible scenarios: 1. Coin 2-drop, C'thun to 8 2. 2-drop, C'thun to 10 3. Something 4. This dude Easy. 1. Something 2. Coin 3-drop, C'thun to 7 3. 3-drop, C'thun to 9 4. This dude, C'thun to 11 at end of turn And the combo: 1. Something 2. 2-drop, C'thun to 8 3. 3-drop, C'thun to 9 4. This dude, C'thun to 10 at end of turn I mean, past the first these are all vulnerable to disruption, but it's not incredibly unlikely. If we get more early buff cards, I think it's very reasonable to expect C'thun to be reliably at 10 on turn 4. And even if these are the only two cards that will ever augment the obvious intended synergy between C'thun and his followers, it's still going to happen more games than not. At least, I think the math works out this way, and I don't particularly feel like going through the probabilistic calculations right now. It is a Batllecry you need to have C'thun at 100 when you play it not at the end of the Turn. That mean the only reliant way to do it on curve (and not expecting any of your minion to survive or not be silenced) Is double Beckoner of Evil (T1-2 with coin or T2-3) and the chance of having both Beckoner and this card in your first 4 Turns is pretty low. So unless something else is revealed, we should not expect to have the the +5 health while playing it on curve. It will happens sure but would be pretty lucky. It is still a pretty good cards imho. @The_Masked_Shrimp: you were expecting 17 slots of Neutral cards to have been taken with C'thun? That would have taken a huge part of the Neutral pack of the expansion. | ||
| ||
