I've been trying out a deck using Reaver's Row for a while now. It includes The Time Has Come as well. I feel like the issue with Reaver's Row is the fact that it's like a 5 mana do nothing for an aggro deck. If only it would summon a 1 cost when summoned it'd be considerably better.
People say The University of Piltover is bad but honestly I've kinda just slot it in Discard Aggro as a 1-of and it does a fine job. As long as the meta is slow that is. When you're fighting a deck with an insane amount of heals or board clear, University just gives more fuel than Jinx could. It can't be easily dealt with through normal means and provides 3 extra cards in a turn, albeit making your plays awkward. Otherwise, don't run it. You'd just want something to kill the Nexus faster rather than a 5 mana do nothing.
Also like minuano said, Hexcore Foundry is REALLY good in EZ Freezy. It automatically wins the games for you if they're a slow deck. It enables that specific deck pretty well.
I think the closest to being insanely good has to be The Veiled Temple, The Scargrounds and The Grand Plaza. They are not only good enough as slot-ins for a deck but also strong enough to create an archetype around it. I think that just having the right support for those landmarks are enough to make them viable in the meta.
As for the rest... I think the reason they are horrid is because they meant to be support cards for certain archetypes. The thing is, the finishers for those archetypes tend to be slow and doesn't actually finish the game. Landmarks are low tempo cards and are meant to be high value (some are clearly not). This means that the finisher needs to gain advantage with Landmarks through value. Though most of the time, they would try to rather try to go for the Nexus (when they're most likely at full health). Countdown decks either need a follower or a champion that immediately advance 1 to landmarks you summon, or make a finisher that relies not on Nexus beatdown but something else (like Star Spring).
...then what should cards which you build the majority of your deck around, be?
A way to accelerate or advance your win condition. Making mummies was the paladin quest, yet it can't win on it's own. Was strong, but could be countered. It seems the design goal of this current expansions quest was "passive power boost that can win games" as opposed to previous quest rewards which largely tended to revolve around "drastically change your hero power to be super strong, but still vulnerable to counterplay".
And honestly I don't know how I feel about this current expansions take on quests. Fun? Sure in some instances. Too strong? Perhaps.
To the extent that Quest Zoolock is too powerful right now in Standard, I'm not convinced Flesh Giant is the right target for a nerf. It's a dual-class card, making it less likely to see a nerf anyway, but as powerful as getting a cheap 8/8 is, it's not unstoppable. Any deck that wants to can tech in Big Game Hunter to clear it before it does anything, and there are lots of class-specific answers as well. The real problem, as others have pointed out, is that Battleground Battlemaster's drawback (being a slightly understated 5-drop) is too small a drawback to make it bad. Compare it to Windspeaker - a card that saw very little play - and it's a neutral card with double the effect of a class card for one extra mana. (Obviously it's slightly different - one effect is permanent, the other is an aura, but granting windfury rarely matters beyond a single turn anyway.) I think the only fix for the card would be to drive up the cost - probably to 7 or 8.
I agree here mesiterz. Battlemaster is a near auto-include into any minion based deck right now, and is the current expansions "leeroy". (the fact it's an aura and not a permanent effects doesn't matter because it either provides lethal, or near lethal) if any minions are left up. It needs to be an 8 cost 100%. Reducing it's stats will matter little (no-one cares about it's stats itself because it's stats are not relevant, the stats of the 2+ minions being left alive from the previous turn are what's relevant. And I'll be royally pissed at blizzard if they end up nerfing this card by reducing it's stats...which is the entirely wrong direction to take this card in.
So to clarify, by 'control' I mean a deck that favours the path of removal and/or armour/healing to survive long enough to reach their win condition. What that win condition is can vary greatly, including plain attrition, overwhelming the opponent with big minions, or maybe even an OTK. The biggest distinction with combo is the amount of draw they run. Combo will tend to draw as quickly as possible, only using stall/removal to buy a few precious turns, whereas control will draw their win condition more naturally, needing less card draw as they deny the opponent's attempts to pressure them.
I can mostly get behind this definition, though I think it highlights exactly how fraught drawing these lines is. I would argue that if your win condition is an OTK, you're a combo deck. Traditional control doesn't have to be strictly attrition decks, but the win condition is generally just to run the opponent out of resources, then play some big threats the opponent can't deal with.
The "extreme" version of that is a fatigue/attrition match where running the opponent out of resources means eventually having them expend their whole deck (because the games are slow and the big threats that typically win games for control can't get a foothold in mirrors), but the principle is the same whether you're trying to run an aggro deck out of cards in their hand or a control deck out of cards in their deck. Your win condition is to eke more value out of your cards than your opponent so that you eventually have more threats than your opponent and win.
I would argue that if you play like a control deck and win like a combo deck, you're both! But overall I would lean on the play-style as the dominant aspect since that drives what you do for the most time. In this case you would also beat aggro without really needing the combo, so yeah, if I have to pick one term I would call it control.
Really though I'd love to construct a visual representation of the N different deck 'qualities', placing each deck as a single point in the N-dimensional scatter graph/phase diagram/Venn diagram. Then you can call the control-combo deck whatever you like, without confusing the fact it is just a point where the control and combo regions overlap.
Hmm, it's a discussion for another time, but I wonder how many qualities (or equivalently axes) you need. It's probably not very many, but unless N<4 it's going to be a nightmare to visualise.
So to clarify, by 'control' I mean a deck that favours the path of removal and/or armour/healing to survive long enough to reach their win condition. What that win condition is can vary greatly, including plain attrition, overwhelming the opponent with big minions, or maybe even an OTK. The biggest distinction with combo is the amount of draw they run. Combo will tend to draw as quickly as possible, only using stall/removal to buy a few precious turns, whereas control will draw their win condition more naturally, needing less card draw as they deny the opponent's attempts to pressure them.
I can mostly get behind this definition, though I think it highlights exactly how fraught drawing these lines is. I would argue that if your win condition is an OTK, you're a combo deck. Traditional control doesn't have to be strictly attrition decks, but the win condition is generally just to run the opponent out of resources, then play some big threats the opponent can't deal with.
The "extreme" version of that is a fatigue/attrition match where running the opponent out of resources means eventually having them expend their whole deck (because the games are slow and the big threats that typically win games for control can't get a foothold in mirrors), but the principle is the same whether you're trying to run an aggro deck out of cards in their hand or a control deck out of cards in their deck. Your win condition is to eke more value out of your cards than your opponent so that you eventually have more threats than your opponent and win.
Not entirely sure why you're making specific examples that "an OTK, you're a combo deck". Yes, and water is also wet. What's your point in defining things that have already been defined before? Traditional control isn't strictly attrition, but yes generally does involve "outvaluing" your opponent in terms of resources. Once again, what is the actual point you are trying to make here, other than padding out a response to make it look more substantial or have a higher level of veracity?
Show Spoiler
I am not advocating for a return of attrition decks to the top of the meta. I just want there to be enough games that go on for enough turns to allow everyone to have the opportunity to try whatever they like. Super efficient card draw is enabling a two-pronged attack on that ideal by squeezing everything slow out of the meta.
I didn't mean to suggest that you were looking for super slow attrition. And I don't mean to suggest that having some long games is bad. All I meant is that because Hearthstone's design/rules emphasize more mixed archetypes like Midrange, when Control plays gets to play a major role in the meta, it often ends up warping the meta. RoS Control Warrior isn't the only example here - I think another good one is KaC Cubelock, which was able to generate a ton of burst with Doomguard and a ton of defense with Voidlord, enabling it to completely dominate any other board-centric deck.
Control can and should find success by preying on popular decks through disruption rather than playing a major role in defining the meta. That can come in the form of AOE and removal against aggro decks, but you can also have hand and deck manipulation to mess with combo decks if those are a significant part of the meta. In that sense, I think the bigger problem is less about card draw and more about combo decks lacking interactivity. Mage Quest is a great example of this - it's really hard to disrupt it because they can play the quest before you can disrupt it (usually - I guess Oh My Yogg! is kind of an option), and can complete the quest and play Arcanist Dawngrasp in the same turn before you can disrupt that because their spells are so cheap. Typical combo disruption would destroy key cards (e.g. with Altar of Fire), but that doesn't do much when they have tons of spells that can complete the quest, and get to draw/play their key cards within the span of a single turn.
Kobolds and Catacombs was released 4 years ago. Using that one specific control deck from a 4 year old meta is hardly being realistic. For one, it was SO oppressive that they ended up hall of faming Doomguard. That was right around the time they shifted away from Charge as a mechanic to Rush. They realized that charge as a baseline mechanic was rather unhealthy because it could be abused. (Same reason they HoF'd leeroy)
Control can and should find success by preying on popular decks through disruption rather than playing a major role in defining the meta. That can come in the form of AOE and removal against aggro decks, but you can also have hand and deck manipulation to mess with combo decks if those are a significant part of the meta.
So it's ok for aggro or even combo/OTK to define the meta, but the minute control defines the meta it's "woe is me"? C'mon. This debate is getting ridiculous. It's like that meme...
Let's examine a much more relevant card: Fire Sale. This card is the *perfect* control card. Cheap, decent aoe, tradable. Means control doesn't have to have it clog their hand. Yet, it's not really being used in control decks right now. It's being used in quest mage, which is (if we are being honest) closer to a OTK/combo deck than an actual Control deck. Though I could see arguments made to "classify" it as a partial control deck (it does control the game before completing it's quest).
Yet the inherent problem here is that a control tool being used by a combo deck because it's cheap and easy to use and scales extremely well with spellpower. The main issue with that is that the developers didn't think of a way to print the card in a way that combo couldn't use it (they figured out awhile ago the way to prevent aggro from using a cheap board clear was to print symmetrical board clears)
This is why expensive board clears that are on-sided are so expensive, to prevent other archtypes from using them. Inherently this leaves us with the problem of "ok, so how do we get to that mana cost without losing". Cause I'll tell you right now, there's no way in hell a single control mage deck that isn't quest would run flamestrike.
And that's just a single comparison of AoE, I haven't even touched on your subject of hand or deck manipulation. Which I do think are good ideas, but once again: The tools generally available to control for hand/deck manipulation would be available to other archetypes as well. We could even subjectively say that Incanter's Flow is self-deck manipulation. And we've seen how that's turned out.
I do think that spell schools is a good direction to help dictate different archetypes (holistically cold spells are more control based, fire spells are aggro based, and arcane spells are value/generation/RNG) but they've still got a ways to go on balancing things.
I wish i got this error. I'd rather have 100 gold and open a pack of my choice instead of getting a completely useless pack with cards from the previous year.
Also, I'd like to agree with meisterz39's assessment. In metas where attrition based control were prominent, it was mostly an awful experience. I like slower games myself, and was gleefully playing control bomb warrior before the last rotation, and was playing lots of control priest in the early parts of the barrens meta. But whenever I face up against a mirror match I often find myself silently praying my opponent just t1 concedes. And I think this is a general sentiment towards control decks in the community.
This feels kind of hypocritical: "gleefully" playing bomb warrior, or control priest but then when you go into a mirror match hoping that they concede. What's that saying? "You can't have your cake and eat it too". You can't be someone who "enjoys slower games" and "plays control decks" but then agrees with the sentiment that "control decks bad".
And meisterz sentiment about how "control doesn't play a large part in Hearthstone's metagame" is PRECISELY why aggro is always running rampant. Aggro at it's core is about consistency and (lately) card draw. Control doesn't generally want a ton of card draw because naturally their cards are more expensive. Control's archtype is to keep aggro in check. Going back to the "holy trifecta". Control's role in card games is to keep aggro in check. OTK decks keep control in check. If control is pushed out of the meta all the time because of lack of support that's on the devs. If control is pushed out of the meta because people can't be bothered to play a match for anything longer than 5-10 minute games. That's on the players: The game is not here to cater to ADD kids who can't be arsed to think beyond their 5 minute face hunter smorc gameplan. Control is often given a bad rap because "my game lasted 20 minutes....hearthstone is so boring" , then perhaps those people are playing the wrong game.
So to clarify, by 'control' I mean a deck that favours the path of removal and/or armour/healing to survive long enough to reach their win condition. What that win condition is can vary greatly, including plain attrition, overwhelming the opponent with big minions, or maybe even an OTK. The biggest distinction with combo is the amount of draw they run. Combo will tend to draw as quickly as possible, only using stall/removal to buy a few precious turns, whereas control will draw their win condition more naturally, needing less card draw as they deny the opponent's attempts to pressure them.
I can mostly get behind this definition, though I think it highlights exactly how fraught drawing these lines is. I would argue that if your win condition is an OTK, you're a combo deck. Traditional control doesn't have to be strictly attrition decks, but the win condition is generally just to run the opponent out of resources, then play some big threats the opponent can't deal with.
The "extreme" version of that is a fatigue/attrition match where running the opponent out of resources means eventually having them expend their whole deck (because the games are slow and the big threats that typically win games for control can't get a foothold in mirrors), but the principle is the same whether you're trying to run an aggro deck out of cards in their hand or a control deck out of cards in their deck. Your win condition is to eke more value out of your cards than your opponent so that you eventually have more threats than your opponent and win.
I am not advocating for a return of attrition decks to the top of the meta. I just want there to be enough games that go on for enough turns to allow everyone to have the opportunity to try whatever they like. Super efficient card draw is enabling a two-pronged attack on that ideal by squeezing everything slow out of the meta.
I didn't mean to suggest that you were looking for super slow attrition. And I don't mean to suggest that having some long games is bad. All I meant is that because Hearthstone's design/rules emphasize more mixed archetypes like Midrange, when Control plays gets to play a major role in the meta, it often ends up warping the meta. RoS Control Warrior isn't the only example here - I think another good one is KaC Cubelock, which was able to generate a ton of burst with Doomguard and a ton of defense with Voidlord, enabling it to completely dominate any other board-centric deck.
Control can and should find success by preying on popular decks through disruption rather than playing a major role in defining the meta. That can come in the form of AOE and removal against aggro decks, but you can also have hand and deck manipulation to mess with combo decks if those are a significant part of the meta. In that sense, I think the bigger problem is less about card draw and more about combo decks lacking interactivity. Mage Quest is a great example of this - it's really hard to disrupt it because they can play the quest before you can disrupt it (usually - I guess Oh My Yogg! is kind of an option), and can complete the quest and play Arcanist Dawngrasp in the same turn before you can disrupt that because their spells are so cheap. Typical combo disruption would destroy key cards (e.g. with Altar of Fire), but that doesn't do much when they have tons of spells that can complete the quest, and get to draw/play their key cards within the span of a single turn.
[Game] Card Treasure Hunt (Hearthstone Riddles)
Thank you, ⚓! Your go
Imposter Amogus Rogue Deck List and Guide - Memes and Dreams #19
Now i want my Wisp+Lady Prestor deck, please! Should be able to pull it off on turn 2 with Shaman or Druid too :D
Imposter Amogus Rogue Deck List and Guide - Memes and Dreams #19
This looks fun. Too bad that Wyrmrest Purifier is now in Wild.
Quest Trading - Play A Friend!
Done
10 subscriber thank you video
Thank you
Landmarks, the impossible equation ?
I've been trying out a deck using Reaver's Row for a while now. It includes The Time Has Come as well. I feel like the issue with Reaver's Row is the fact that it's like a 5 mana do nothing for an aggro deck. If only it would summon a 1 cost when summoned it'd be considerably better.
People say The University of Piltover is bad but honestly I've kinda just slot it in Discard Aggro as a 1-of and it does a fine job. As long as the meta is slow that is. When you're fighting a deck with an insane amount of heals or board clear, University just gives more fuel than Jinx could. It can't be easily dealt with through normal means and provides 3 extra cards in a turn, albeit making your plays awkward. Otherwise, don't run it. You'd just want something to kill the Nexus faster rather than a 5 mana do nothing.
Also like minuano said, Hexcore Foundry is REALLY good in EZ Freezy. It automatically wins the games for you if they're a slow deck. It enables that specific deck pretty well.
I think the closest to being insanely good has to be The Veiled Temple, The Scargrounds and The Grand Plaza. They are not only good enough as slot-ins for a deck but also strong enough to create an archetype around it. I think that just having the right support for those landmarks are enough to make them viable in the meta.
As for the rest... I think the reason they are horrid is because they meant to be support cards for certain archetypes. The thing is, the finishers for those archetypes tend to be slow and doesn't actually finish the game. Landmarks are low tempo cards and are meant to be high value (some are clearly not). This means that the finisher needs to gain advantage with Landmarks through value. Though most of the time, they would try to rather try to go for the Nexus (when they're most likely at full health). Countdown decks either need a follower or a champion that immediately advance 1 to landmarks you summon, or make a finisher that relies not on Nexus beatdown but something else (like Star Spring).
Varian & Jace: A Love Story
Totally! More power to them both, and may they have many happy years together.
Duels Balance Changes Incoming? What's the Deal with Mind Tether Priest?
We're not saying that Meek Mastery is going to be nerfed, but rather that the devs are keeping an eye on it.
[Game] Card Treasure Hunt (Hearthstone Riddles)
Stockades Prisoner
"I am never beaten." might refer being in prison maybe ? :)
Duels Balance Changes Incoming? What's the Deal with Mind Tether Priest?
I feel like one of duels main issues from a design perspective is it reliance on mana cheat to do "big, cool things".
I'd be interested in if they could redesign it, without any mana cheating, and still make it have the "big, cool things"
Duels Balance Changes Incoming? What's the Deal with Mind Tether Priest?
Mind Tether definitely needs the nerf treatment, but I'm not sure how they can actually balance it without completely killing it.
Imposter Amogus Rogue Deck List and Guide - Memes and Dreams #19
Brilliant idea, thanks for sharing!
Quest Hate
A way to accelerate or advance your win condition. Making mummies was the paladin quest, yet it can't win on it's own. Was strong, but could be countered. It seems the design goal of this current expansions quest was "passive power boost that can win games" as opposed to previous quest rewards which largely tended to revolve around "drastically change your hero power to be super strong, but still vulnerable to counterplay".
And honestly I don't know how I feel about this current expansions take on quests. Fun? Sure in some instances. Too strong? Perhaps.
Scalding Hot Take: The Demon Seed is not the problem
I agree here mesiterz. Battlemaster is a near auto-include into any minion based deck right now, and is the current expansions "leeroy". (the fact it's an aura and not a permanent effects doesn't matter because it either provides lethal, or near lethal) if any minions are left up. It needs to be an 8 cost 100%. Reducing it's stats will matter little (no-one cares about it's stats itself because it's stats are not relevant, the stats of the 2+ minions being left alive from the previous turn are what's relevant. And I'll be royally pissed at blizzard if they end up nerfing this card by reducing it's stats...which is the entirely wrong direction to take this card in.
Card draw power creep is a major issue
I would argue that if you play like a control deck and win like a combo deck, you're both! But overall I would lean on the play-style as the dominant aspect since that drives what you do for the most time. In this case you would also beat aggro without really needing the combo, so yeah, if I have to pick one term I would call it control.
Really though I'd love to construct a visual representation of the N different deck 'qualities', placing each deck as a single point in the N-dimensional scatter graph/phase diagram/Venn diagram. Then you can call the control-combo deck whatever you like, without confusing the fact it is just a point where the control and combo regions overlap.
Hmm, it's a discussion for another time, but I wonder how many qualities (or equivalently axes) you need. It's probably not very many, but unless N<4 it's going to be a nightmare to visualise.
Duels Balance Changes Incoming? What's the Deal with Mind Tether Priest?
thank god, meek mastery is gonna get nerfed
Did You Receive a Classic Pack in Last Week's Tavern Brawl? 100 Gold Compensation is Coming Soon
Card draw power creep is a major issue
Not entirely sure why you're making specific examples that "an OTK, you're a combo deck". Yes, and water is also wet. What's your point in defining things that have already been defined before? Traditional control isn't strictly attrition, but yes generally does involve "outvaluing" your opponent in terms of resources. Once again, what is the actual point you are trying to make here, other than padding out a response to make it look more substantial or have a higher level of veracity?
Kobolds and Catacombs was released 4 years ago. Using that one specific control deck from a 4 year old meta is hardly being realistic. For one, it was SO oppressive that they ended up hall of faming Doomguard. That was right around the time they shifted away from Charge as a mechanic to Rush. They realized that charge as a baseline mechanic was rather unhealthy because it could be abused. (Same reason they HoF'd leeroy)
So it's ok for aggro or even combo/OTK to define the meta, but the minute control defines the meta it's "woe is me"? C'mon. This debate is getting ridiculous. It's like that meme...
Let's examine a much more relevant card: Fire Sale. This card is the *perfect* control card. Cheap, decent aoe, tradable. Means control doesn't have to have it clog their hand. Yet, it's not really being used in control decks right now. It's being used in quest mage, which is (if we are being honest) closer to a OTK/combo deck than an actual Control deck. Though I could see arguments made to "classify" it as a partial control deck (it does control the game before completing it's quest).
Yet the inherent problem here is that a control tool being used by a combo deck because it's cheap and easy to use and scales extremely well with spellpower. The main issue with that is that the developers didn't think of a way to print the card in a way that combo couldn't use it (they figured out awhile ago the way to prevent aggro from using a cheap board clear was to print symmetrical board clears)
This is why expensive board clears that are on-sided are so expensive, to prevent other archtypes from using them. Inherently this leaves us with the problem of "ok, so how do we get to that mana cost without losing". Cause I'll tell you right now, there's no way in hell a single control mage deck that isn't quest would run flamestrike.
And that's just a single comparison of AoE, I haven't even touched on your subject of hand or deck manipulation. Which I do think are good ideas, but once again: The tools generally available to control for hand/deck manipulation would be available to other archetypes as well. We could even subjectively say that Incanter's Flow is self-deck manipulation. And we've seen how that's turned out.
I do think that spell schools is a good direction to help dictate different archetypes (holistically cold spells are more control based, fire spells are aggro based, and arcane spells are value/generation/RNG) but they've still got a ways to go on balancing things.
Did You Receive a Classic Pack in Last Week's Tavern Brawl? 100 Gold Compensation is Coming Soon
I wish i got this error. I'd rather have 100 gold and open a pack of my choice instead of getting a completely useless pack with cards from the previous year.
Imposter Amogus Rogue Deck List and Guide - Memes and Dreams #19
[Game] Card Treasure Hunt (Hearthstone Riddles)
Dreaded Mount
[Game] Card Treasure Hunt (Hearthstone Riddles)
It's a warlock card
Card draw power creep is a major issue
This feels kind of hypocritical: "gleefully" playing bomb warrior, or control priest but then when you go into a mirror match hoping that they concede. What's that saying? "You can't have your cake and eat it too". You can't be someone who "enjoys slower games" and "plays control decks" but then agrees with the sentiment that "control decks bad".
And meisterz sentiment about how "control doesn't play a large part in Hearthstone's metagame" is PRECISELY why aggro is always running rampant. Aggro at it's core is about consistency and (lately) card draw. Control doesn't generally want a ton of card draw because naturally their cards are more expensive. Control's archtype is to keep aggro in check. Going back to the "holy trifecta". Control's role in card games is to keep aggro in check. OTK decks keep control in check. If control is pushed out of the meta all the time because of lack of support that's on the devs. If control is pushed out of the meta because people can't be bothered to play a match for anything longer than 5-10 minute games. That's on the players: The game is not here to cater to ADD kids who can't be arsed to think beyond their 5 minute face hunter smorc gameplan. Control is often given a bad rap because "my game lasted 20 minutes....hearthstone is so boring" , then perhaps those people are playing the wrong game.
Card draw power creep is a major issue
I can mostly get behind this definition, though I think it highlights exactly how fraught drawing these lines is. I would argue that if your win condition is an OTK, you're a combo deck. Traditional control doesn't have to be strictly attrition decks, but the win condition is generally just to run the opponent out of resources, then play some big threats the opponent can't deal with.
The "extreme" version of that is a fatigue/attrition match where running the opponent out of resources means eventually having them expend their whole deck (because the games are slow and the big threats that typically win games for control can't get a foothold in mirrors), but the principle is the same whether you're trying to run an aggro deck out of cards in their hand or a control deck out of cards in their deck. Your win condition is to eke more value out of your cards than your opponent so that you eventually have more threats than your opponent and win.
I didn't mean to suggest that you were looking for super slow attrition. And I don't mean to suggest that having some long games is bad. All I meant is that because Hearthstone's design/rules emphasize more mixed archetypes like Midrange, when Control plays gets to play a major role in the meta, it often ends up warping the meta. RoS Control Warrior isn't the only example here - I think another good one is KaC Cubelock, which was able to generate a ton of burst with Doomguard and a ton of defense with Voidlord, enabling it to completely dominate any other board-centric deck.
Control can and should find success by preying on popular decks through disruption rather than playing a major role in defining the meta. That can come in the form of AOE and removal against aggro decks, but you can also have hand and deck manipulation to mess with combo decks if those are a significant part of the meta. In that sense, I think the bigger problem is less about card draw and more about combo decks lacking interactivity. Mage Quest is a great example of this - it's really hard to disrupt it because they can play the quest before you can disrupt it (usually - I guess Oh My Yogg! is kind of an option), and can complete the quest and play Arcanist Dawngrasp in the same turn before you can disrupt that because their spells are so cheap. Typical combo disruption would destroy key cards (e.g. with Altar of Fire), but that doesn't do much when they have tons of spells that can complete the quest, and get to draw/play their key cards within the span of a single turn.
Imposter Amogus Rogue Deck List and Guide - Memes and Dreams #19
Thanks for awesome deck. I know it’s no power house but it is fun.