Nerfs ahoy! It looks like that balance meeting that took place yesterday was a success because Hearthstone's Alec Dawson is teasing an upcoming patch.
Hearthstone's 20.0.2 patch will go out early next week and include six card changes. We have not yet been given a breakdown on the exact changes, Alec says those details are coming "soon", but he does mention that they'd like to create more space for experimentation in this early Forged in the Barrens meta.
With that in mind, what do you think is going to be targeted?
Mage and Paladin are clearly outperforming everyone else right now, and Rogue has some nastiness to them as well - the three classes dominating the meta - so it isn't much of a surprise they are being hit. Although not confirmed, Pen Flinger seems like an appropriate choice given its popularity since its addition to Hearthstone. It also would not be surprising to see the crazy value generator, Deck of Lunacy, receive a hit alongside that dominant Far Watch Post which caused players to just leave games early on the Barrens.
The launch of Forged in the Barrens has been rough so far but with a quick reaction from Blizzard, and some potentially lethal nerfs, it could leave plenty of room for new strategies to takeover, reshaping the meta quite a bit.
Stay tuned to find out what the changes will be, whenever Blizzard makes the big announcement.
Quote From Alec Dawson Balance changes to go out early next week with 20.0.2. We'll be targeting some cards in Mage, Paladin, Rogue, and Neutral. Hoping to create more space for experimentation in the early Barrens meta and have a more diverse field of classes. 6 changes in total, details coming soon.
![All The Great Dark Beyond Card Reveals for October 23 - Day 13 [Finished]](the-great-dark-beyond-day-13.webp)
Comments
I am hoping it's a health nerf, down to 3 so that it's still effective but can be removed easier. If they increase the mana cost to 3 I think it makes it a lot worse. Bad enough to drop the whole package.
Pen Flinger can die in a fire. Not because it's super strong but it's agonizing to watch it being played.
HEY LOSER, WASN'T ME HEY LOSER, WASN'T ME HEY LOSER, WASN'T ME *rope starts to burn* HEY LOSER, WASN'T ME HEY LOSER, WASN'T ME
Nerf Predictions:
Balance Flinger
Deck of Balance
Sword of the Balanced
Far Balance Post
Balanced Barov
Libram of Balance
I'm sure Deck of Lunacy will get hit. Sure, a turn 2 Lunacy might not guarantee a win despite the stats saying so, but it's an incredibly annoying card to play against. Imagine not having any idea what to expect from your opponent while they drop powerful spells every turn. That's not fit for any competitive scene whatsoever.
I'm guessing the other nerfs would be to Sword of the Fallen (down to 2 durability) and Pen Flinger (just limit its damage to minions so as not to kill the card). As for the others, I think Field Contact might get hit. That's just an insane draw engine for Rogue that maybe the devs foresee it as a problem. Refreshing Spring Water likely won't get nerfed; you just need to kill the archetype it's strong in (No-minion Mage where it's just a free card to play) and it'll be fine in other Mage decks.
I would agree with your nerf proposals, but to say that you have no idea about spells from lunacy is just wrong. Bucket of spells is so small that you can have a good idea what will mage play if you played more than 3 games against it.
I wish Warlock would get hit with a few nerfs as well. I don't see any other Control lists being viable with Tickatus, Cascading Disaster and Y'Shaarj, the Defiler running rampant.
I agree with you and that worries me because control warlock with the corrupt mill package is the only deck i like right now. If mill control warlock is out, then it's time for priest to dominate the late game and we all know how much the community loves losing to priests stealing their stuff and generating random bullshit.
Except priest doesn't have much stealing or generation right now. Sethekk Veilweaver and Skeletal Dragon are the only generation engines. Psychic Conjurer and Mindrender Illucia are the only steal/copy effects.
Compared to the Galakrond days, there is a real chance that a control priest could gas out.
Hot Take: Lunacy is *popular* for sure, but isn't actually winning matches at a statistically higher rate than other decks have in the past. If you look at the stats for the past few expansion releases, you'll see other decks had HIGHER winrates than No-Minion/Lunacy mage.
Yes, I enjoy no-minion mage, but even with a turn 2 Deck of Lunacy play, there's no guarantee the deck will win. Sure it's favored to win, but saying "if you play deck of lunacy on turn 2, your chances go up" is the same exact thing that happened back in the KOTFT meta with Prince Kelesth Rogues. The deck could still win without Prince 2 on turn 2. But if he was played (and they had shadowsteps) then the chances of the rogue winning went up dramatically.
I was playing a no minion mage earlier today against a Druid. A tree/token druid. Watch the replay. By turn 7 I was down to 4 health. If I was playing ANY OTHER DECK other than Lunacy Mage, I would have lost 100%.
https://hsreplay.net/replay/ZfE5dpF2dRXXVyT4vzobWn
Yet, people are saying that Lunacy is a problem? Why is it ok for tree/token druid to be able to generate that much threat/damage but mage can't? I'm ok with balance changes, I'm even ok with people going "I don't like facing this deck" (trust me, I'm the same way about Tickatus). But why is it fair for "aggro" decks to ALWAYS be strong in metas, but the one time a no-minion control mage deck gets popular everyone cries for nerfs?
What exactly is the problem with a control deck ACTUALLY having a foothold in the first week of the meta? I know this sounds like a gripe, but this is the FIRST TIME in an expansion release that I didn't get overwhelmed with yet another damn aggro/smorc Hunter deck. IT was *SO* refreshing to be able to play games and actually feel like there was play and counterplay by both sides instead of just "me hunter, me go face" at the beginning of every expansion.
So I repeat. What exactly is the problem people have with a control deck ACTUALLY being good in the first week of an expansion? And one that isn't even consistent. I've had so many games where lunacy bricked and gave me *TOO* much draw to the point that half the cards in my hand were draw that I couldn't use or do anything with cause my deck only had 2 cards left. I get that it's a "crazy" RNG deck, but isn't that the point? Yes, it's gonna have crazy wins, but it has crazy losses too. You just never see them because when you win against a lunacy mage, you usually have no idea what crappy cards he/she ended up getting.
Thanks for listening and will answer replies when I can.
Yes Deck of Lunacy by itself is inflating No minion mage numbers way higher than it should be which is why I don't see any other mage cards getting nerfed after lunacy until further investigation after lunacy nerf.
No minion mage is the best deck in legend right now. It looks bad because so many people are playing it including bad players who some aren't building the deck accurately.
Lunacy is definitely the main problem 100% to question that is moronic. Literally every pro player wants it nerfed, it's game breaking like release DH.
Though I do think Token Druid will be a Tier 1 deck after nerfs if not the best deck.
This really isn't a hot take as it's pretty known among the better players that paladin is the deck with the oppressive win-rate. Mage's winrate is 'just' tier 1 but ridiculously overplayed for some reason.
The reason why it's a problem is exactly as you described. Because it has a card that boosts its winrate to toxic levels if played early, much like Keleseth. Nothing wrong with the deck being strong, if it's got counters, which it does, and doesn't generally rely so heavily on drawing a single card.
And then there's the fact that people are turned away from the game simply because once every three games they'll face a mage. Even if the deck isn't the strongest, the fact that it has made standard this boring while we're only a week in isn't healthy for the game. We've had a similar scenario with Barnes in wild a few years ago. The deck's nerf is justified, even if it's not a meta tyrant.
That's fair. I know that sometimes Blizzard nerfs deck purely out of community perception, and less on the actual statistical power. It's just one of the few times in recent history that a control deck has had that opportunity. But yea, Paladin's winrate made mage's winrate look like nothing.
I'm fine to play against aggro. One can actually remove minions, play around things against aggro, but it's like impossible against Lunacy Mage. Mana cheat, random spells, 0 cost draw are not fun to play against, especially with the majority of good spells in Standard right now.
It was a highroll deck back in the day, now it's more consistent. I don't say it's very consistent, but no deck ever is.
You can't play a slow deck, because that "control" deck will start sending Fireballs, Apexis Blasts and Eyes to your face, or even Turn 6 Nagrand Slam, followed by another Nagrand Slam.
Yes, it is refreshing to be able to play games. I've just played against the same deck 7 times in a row.
Win rate isn't the only factor that determines whether something gets nerfed. For example Quest Rogue was mainly nerfed because it felt terrible to play against.
By the way, No Minion Mage is now 23.5% of the meta according to HS Replay, so the mirror match is going to lower the average win rate. Even a theoretical deck that wins every single game against other decks would only get 88% win rate if it is that popular.
Prince Keleseth wasn't healthy for the meta, so I don't think that comparison redeems Deck of Lunacy.
I think Prince Keleseth wasn't nerfed both because Team 5 was much more reluctant to nerf any card at the time and because there is no easy way to nerf him. Deck of Lunacy would be easy to nerf by adjusting its mana cost or the amount of discount it gives on the random spells.
I do like No Minion Mage as a deck; I've been playing it ever since Apexis Blast was released. Still, I hope Deck of Lunacy gets nerfed, to take away the high roll potential and hopefully leave cards that bring consistency such as Refreshing Spring Water untouched.
I think it's a combination of how popular it is and how bad it feels to play against. The combination of random generation and big mana discounts just feels unfair.
Tickatus is also a potential problem card; if it were in 20%+ of the games played, I'm sure people would be shouting for it to get nerfed.
As far as archetypes go, I think No Minion Mage with C'Thun, the Shattered is more of a typical control deck than with Deck of Lunacy: you keep the opponent in check until you eventually assemble your win condition.
The challenge for me with this explanation is the idea that the game would have played out the same - with you down at 4 health by turn 7 - if you were playing any other deck. I don't even really believe that outcome was inevitably true in the game you've linked to.
With the exception of an early Combustion, you spend the first six turns doing very little to interact with your opponent's board. Take your turn 5, for example, when you could easily have used your Fireball to take out one of your opponent's minions, but you dropped a Trick Totem instead. That right there was 4 damage you didn't have to take. And that would have set you up to Apexis Blast their remaining buffed taunt, which also has about a 27.7% chance of getting you something to further deal with the board (18.5% taunts, 9.2% rush minions)
My aim here is not to criticize your plays, but rather to point out that the game could have played out differently if you had interacted more with your opponent's minions. And there are other cards you could have run to deal with aggro decks more effectively in the early game that didn't show up in your deck list (e.g. Ice Barrier and Cone of Cold) which would have probably changed the outcome quite a bit.
So it's hard to believe that any other deck would have lost the game. Certainly, any other deck would have lost from that position - down to 4 HP against aggro on turn 7 - but most other decks wouldn't have let the game get there in the first place.
That's fair. And thanks for the feedback. On the one hand, interacting with the board "more" is not the no-minion goal though. Inherently, even if no minion mage wasn't running DoL, the first 5 turns would play out just the same. Hell, let's pretend for a second I was playing watcher/ping mage. The watch towers? At that point do hardly nothing since he plays out his early actual minions before the 2 mana watch tower would have come into play. He a few more minions but nothing that would have posed a threat. The 3 mana watch tower would have spawned 2/2's that he could handily take care of with his buffed minions. And the watch tower itself doesn't pose a threat.
And for a button mage, at that point in the game under *ideal* circumstances, what would the best play be? The 4 drop that casts hero power on all enemies with a 1 or even 2 copies of wildfire previously played (which to do so, would mean pretty much doing nothing on turn 2 and turn 3.
So ultimately ANY prominent mage deck (either no-minion or button) would have under ideal circumstances done the same first few turns.
I understand that aggro's goal is to overwhelm early before the enemy stabilizes. My counterpoint is this: Why is it ok for aggro decks to have such power available to them, but when a control deck is able to RNG into a win condition against them semi-consistently, suddenly it's "unfair".
If you recall, the aggro deck just needs to pray that the opponent doesn't draw into AoE/Removal, and/or heals/armor gains. (which statistically for mage is exceedingly rare). Imagine if I was running Ice Barrier. What good would that REALLY do? 8 armor stall. That's 2 minion attacks. Cone of Cold, stall for one turn into the hopes that I draw my flamestrike before he kills me? Again, the aggro deck just needs the control player to brick because control decks HOLISTICALLY only have a FEW answers to aggro. They are COUNTING on control decks to brick and not have the tool that they need in order to stabilize.
Deck of Lunacy takes that scenario and says "I'm going to turn all your spells into RNG spells, which statistically higher cost spells have such powerful effects that they are most likely going to help you, but you won't know what spells you have, and you'll have to draw them". It gives the no minion mage deck an ACTUAL shot at dealing with aggro and winning. As opposed to the 1% chance of winning that they normally would have without Deck of Lunacy and just PRAYING that they draw their stall/aoe clear cards.
The latter is NOT fun. There's NOTHING fun about a control deck losing to an aggro deck because the aggro deck can just play pretty much anything and the control deck is going "well, there he goes just smorcing me while I pray for heals/stall/clears".
Maybe I'm biased, but aggro ALWAYS has the upper hand against other decks. (Which it shouldn't even be that way. The holy trinity of counters SHOULD be Aggro>OTK>Control>Aggro.) But instead in Hearthstone it's just Aggro>>>>>>>Everything else 99% of the time unless the other decks get lucky.
I'm not trying to suggest that aggro should dominate and control should lose - in fact, I strongly prefer midrange and control strategies. But I think you're reducing the question of archetype/class pair matchups down to archetype matchups, and losing some important details. The prototypical Mage approach to dealing with aggro is stalling until they can play big board clears. That was always the case with Ice Block, Frost Nova, etc., and it's no different now. That lack of cheap board control means they're inherently weaker against heavy aggro, and the loss of massive freeze has reigned in a lot of their unfair stall/combo kill playstyles.
So, should Control Mage vs. Aggro Druid be a bad match-up for Mage? Probably yes - Mage's toolkit is way better at playing control against midrange decks because they have single target frost spells and big AOEs. But that's okay in my mind, as there are other control classes that can go toe to toe with Aggro Druid more easily, and probably some midrange decks that can beat it easily. The goal of a healthy meta is to have lots of classes and archetypes beating up on lots of other classes and archetypes, and this specific match can be bad without having Mage be a bad class in the metagame. We just need a metagame with greater deck diversity to create some of that archetype balancing.
I think the reason why he played trick totem on turn 5 was because he wanted to hp that 4/1 frog, which left him with 3 mana.
On the subject, the only real misplay here would be turn 4 Deck of Lunacy. I really would have either font to look for options first, or just fireball the 2/3 if the minions cant be played.
The Fireball was only 3 mana thanks to an earlier Incanter's Flow - he could ping the 4/1 Toad of the Wilds and Fireball a second minion in the same turn. Instead he floats a mana and drops Trick Totem.
I agree he should have played Font of Power prior to Deck of Lunacy for the options, but I think otherwise it seemed like the right play to drop Deck of Lunacy rather than float a mana.
You could maybe argue that he should have played Font of Power into the randomly generated Firebrand into Deck of Lunacy with the hopes of killing the Bonechewer Brawler with the spellburst, but the average outcome is that their Bonechewer Brawler becomes a 6/1 and their Toad of the Wilds dies. Then they'd play their new Toad and Mark of the Spikeshell on the 6/1 and go face for 8 (rather than trade with the 3/4 like they did). Now you're starting turn 5 at 16 health instead of 22, but you can trade on board with the Brawler and Apexis Blast the last minion on board. Ultimately that's probably better than what happened, since the Trick Totem didn't stop any incoming damage, leaving him at 14 at the start of turn 6.
I'm not sure that's better than just Font of Power into Fireball like you've suggested, but I'd always play the Deck of Lunacy there at the end of turn 4 regardless.
(Notably, I'm assuming all random card generation would have played out exactly the same as it did - maybe order matters and would have changed the results without Deck of Lunacy being played first.)