The main problem with landmarks is the lack of good landmark removal cards. Right now the only good one is Scorched Earth. Any time we had strong landmarks they ended up being oppressive and had to be nerfed that was the case with The Grand Plaza and The Veiled Temple.
Also your general assessment on landmark power level is good, with exception of Hexcore Foundry that one is pretty good and synergies really well with Teemo deck since you pump your opponent deck full of Puffcaps and force him to draw them with Hexcore.
Overall the mechanic is still ( relatively ) new and the dev are still experimenting with it to see what works and what doesn't, I think they eventually get it right.
Right, so what have we, once again, learned about these extremely premature nerf takes everyone?
Questline hunter is one of the most overrated decks in standard, aka gigabad and warrior is barely playable. Vastly overshadowed by other quests such as mage (overplayed), warlock (quest nerf candidate #1) and rogue (quest nerf candidate #2).
Very ironic that you would call out others for premature nerf takes when Rogue and Warlock aren't even that powerful either, especially compared to what Mage is still doing.
The payoff is often slightly better than [Hearthstone Card (lakarri sacrifice) Not Found] putting on board a 2/2, giving you a 1 attack weapon and dealing 4 damage randomly.
That is a gross misrepresentation of what the quest actually does. You're taking like 25 % of the questline and comparing that in isolation to Lakkari Sacrifice.
First off, the requirements. Lakkari Sacrifice requires you to tear your own hand to shreds. Sure, there are cards that give you a payoff for doing so. And there are a lot of cards that don't. You're at the mercy of RNG as to which ones you end up discarding to determine whether you're actively two-for-oneing yourself or getting an advantage. Meanwhile, the Warrior Quest requires you to develop your board, something you already want to be doing. I.e. there is essentially no requirement other than you have to play a Pirate deck.
Secondly, the payoff. Lakkari Sacrifice: pay 5 mana to subtract one slot from your board. You then get two 3/2s every turn. It's a massive tempo loss that brings a steady benefit in the long run...assuming we consider two easy-to-kill minions a benefit. You can easily just lose the board to a control deck since those are stuffed with minor AoE that will just wipe your quest reward every turn, while they build a board of their own. The Warrior Quest: draw a weapon for free, deal 2x2 damage for free, then get a 7/7 for 5 mana that subtracts one board slot to get you a weapon (inevitable damage), a pirate (potential damage similar to Lakkari Sacrifice) and shoots 2x2 damage (inevitable damage) every turn. Those things are not on par with each other at all.
Even ignoring the sub-rewards along the way the Warrior Questline way outshines Lakkari Sacrifice and not just because you get a 5 mana 7/7 along with it. You can't keep the Warrior Questline contained because the reward isn't two slow minions that might do something next turn. It's one slow minion and then two immediately impactful rewards that the opponent can do nothing about. Also the rewards trigger at the start of your turn so if the minion happens to have rush or charge, your opponent has no opportunity to respond to its presence.
The questline is definitely not in need of a buff. It may be the case that in standard, the deck you have to build around the questline may not be great, but that might be due to a lack of support, not due to flaws with the questline. I wouldn't know, since I don't play standard. But I can tell you that in Wild the questline is doing quite well. It's not the top dog, but at least a solid tier 2 deck that seems to be actually better than the non-quest Pirate Warriors used to be, or is at least on par with them. That's not something you'd get out of a weak questline.
I'd like to start a topic on landmarks. I love landmarks (as a mechanic). I hate (most of currently existing) landmarks. Historically, I've been playing an equivalent on Shadowverse ((countdown) amulets) a lot.
One of my concern about LoR landmarks is that it shares the same issues than shadowverse ones (board management can become very tedious, the high risk of drawing the deck "upside down" (meaning here drawing very few early game landmarks and a lot of landmark based spells/allies with not enough targets), the high dependency between amulets and amulets related spells, the sluggishness, the tendency to get stomped by faster decks). But that's not really the biggest issue, that's the price to pay such a type of deck centered about future payback.
The main issues, I think, is that the average power level of landmarks in this game is bad. Some of them are abysmal by my now average experience in LoR and high in Shadowverse. And while I'm far from good at LoR for now, current meta snapshot actually demonstrates how little landmarks, including the ones incompatibles with Taliyah, are played.
Of course, some of them are good, very good even, and you do see them in meta decks. Namely, Preservarium, Emperor's dais, Blighted Ravine, Frozen Thrall, Sun Disc. There is a couple others which I deem playable even if non meta : Ancient preparations, Hibernating Rockbear, Star Spring.
About others, eh... what I think their power level is, feel free to share your own view or enlight me :
Ripper's bay - Bad/Meh. Inexpensive but take a board slot, something you do not want in an agressive deck.
Rockfall Path - Abysmal. It's sluggish, it's easy to play around, it doesn't help against aggro decks. It requires Countdown 1 to be remotely playable.
Startipped Peak - Bad. The fact it's random and doesn't give you a card immediately make it a LARGELY worse Preservarium, which you'll always play over this. Requires to provide first card immediately or cost 1 less.
Hexcore Foundry - Abysmal. 2021 and CCG designers still think anyone would play a card which will make opponent draw (especially aggro decks). Genius. Even if a mill pop this is too expensive. Requires to cost 2 less.
Inner Sanctum - Abysmal. Even Lebonk Sivir doesn't want that shit. If you pay it for its initial cost you deserve to lose. And Frozen thrall allies already had the only keyword you need. Requires to provide at least twice as much cards.
Monastery of Hirana - Abysmally abysmal. Providing bounces you can't use in combat nor as an answer to a spell (which are 99% of bounce usage in this game. Wow.
Spiral Stairs - Abysmally abysmal. Is EXPENSIVE and SLUGGISH as fuck for what it provides. The spell is slow and fleeting, making it very very ackward to use and prone to every single counterplay ever (counterspells, removals, ...). There is much better ways to use overhelm, and naturally Frozen Thrall decks won't need or play this garbage card. Requires to cost 2 less or cost 1 less and countdown 2.
The Grand Plaza - Average. It's a bit expensive but the effect is kinda good. There might be some stuff to do with that card.
The Scargrounds - Below average. In an appropriate deck it could be interesting, but it's a bit expensive for what it provides. Should cost 1 less.
The Slaughter docks - Average. Toss/Sea monsters decks doesn't seems to be favored but I suspect should a deck about it becomes okay this card will probably be added. Surely sometimes it will summon a Sea Scarab but most of the time it will pay for itself later, and it helps getting deep.
The twisted treeline - Bad. The follower isn't massive and the condition isn't exactly easy to trigger. And worse, it requires the fearsome followers to attack meaning you'll not be able to attack with Vilemaw on the same turn, making it virtually idle for this turn and next one. Requires for Vilemaw to be summoned and attacking immediately.
Salt spire - Abysmal. Way too expensive and slow for what it provides. Requires to cost 1 less and countdown 1.
The Veiled Temple - Decent/Average. I rate it this way assuming it can trigger on the turn you plays it, making it cost virtually 2 on a spell heavy deck. The +1/0 is nice to have, but the probably important effect is the discount itself, actually raising you capability to turn the table by being a disguised ramp, and more importantly, being disguised as having up to 15 mana a turn in an appropriate deck. I suspect the future may give this card a potential.
Eye of the Ra-Horak - Average/Bad. It's very expensive but it being countdown 1, it may help you to slow down the opponent. Per se it's correct. The main card issue however is its design. First issue is the Daybreak restriction, making it much weaker to seek with Imagined possibilities or Stoneweaving. Second issue is the fact the copy is countdown 2 and not 3. Meaning the copy will trigger on opponent defensive turn (because let's be honest most of the time you'll play this amulet on your offensive turn), which limited usage but a massive counterpush. So only a Malphite deck really want that. Should cost 1 less.
Noxkraya Arena - Bad. In an appropriate deck it MIGHT have some use but it's expensive as fuck.
Reavers's Row - Bad ? I'm not totally sure, maybe a 1 cost follower deck could be fun ? Expensive as fuck for what it provides, but some meme potential.
Sandswept Tomb - Bad. It's Emperor's dais in largely worse. Very expensive. Maybe in a reputation deck, but beside that it's probably too weak for anything.
Targon's Peak - Meme. With some intellectual honesty and having played an equivalent in Shadowverse I should rate it abysmal. But I'm gonna play it regardless for the glory of the meme so I won't.
The University of Piltover - Abysmally abysmal. The design is stupid as fuck and an insult to the glory of the meme. First design flaw is that is it IMCOMPATIBLE with the discard queen, Jinx. In fact, at the beginning of the turn this will empty your hand (and therefore make Jinx gain level), but you won't get Jinx draw nether a rocket, making the combo meh as fuck. The only good part of this card is that it seems the cards always cost less or equal than your starting turn mana. Wish I didn't spend 3 of my jokers on this garbage.
Vaults of Helia - Bad. There is probably a specific deck design to do to force summoned allies, making it some kind of tutor (and use ally generating spells for more fodder). But it's expensive as fuck for what it does and it's risky (empty board at the end of any turn = you probably can ff).
The howling abyss - Average/Bad. Very expensive, so to be played exclusively on your offensive turn. Also it's random, meaning you'll sometimes get champions which does virtually nothing useful for you. The thing which makes it close to average is the fact it's Freljord, so ramp can help making this thing happens. You'll just hope not to get Teemo out of this, as well as several mechanic specific champions such as Yasuo. Wish it costed 1 less.
Exactly, thank goodness someone who can see the problem!
This mod is a sort of interpreter or intermediary with the graphical interface (both inbound and outbound): a blind person can play the game, but also an algorithm!
And well, regarding whether or not an intelligent bot can reach legend... well, the standard mode is currently pretty straightforward, so it would be very easy to program an algorithm to play a specific overpowered deck (and we have a couple of them).
Of course, you'll note that none of the archetypes I mentioned are strictly control decks, even though that very lack of control is called out as the central problem with too much card draw. To be frank, I think the idea that Hearthstone lacking traditional control decks is a problem reflects an overly dogmatic reading of the traditional Aggro > Combo > Control triange. It's a great tool for thinking about how archetypes interact, but it was always intended as more illustrative (because in any given match-up, your aggro deck might have to be the "control" rather than the "beatdown," etc.), and its MTG roots make very clear that it isn't a perfect tool for Hearthstone. MTGs rules about attackers and blockers create a fundamentally different control experience, while Hearthstone is designed to produce a faster gameplay experience that's intended as a mobile-first experience.
Because Hearthstone has always been a tempo game first and foremost, I think it's natural that Midrange/Tempo decks replace Control most of the time in that triangle, which makes pretty clear that today's distribution of archetypes is actually pretty healthy. In fact, when I think back to metagames with prominent traditional control decks, those metagames were typically awful. Control Mech Warrior around Rise of Shadows is a great example of this - it was typical that these decks would generate 30+ armor in a game, leverage Archivist Elysiana to extend their deck, and drag any even remotely slow game into fatigue (and potentially to the 90 turn cap). That was a miserable time to play the game, even if you love traditional control decks, because every game felt super samey and super slow.
I agree we have to take some care when transferring terms between games, although my involvement with MtG has been basically nothing beyond watching ProJared play the old Shandalar game, so my conception of the term 'control' and its relationship to other archetypes is squarely within the Hearthstone setting.
I think the bigger problem with the term is that, as with aggro and combo, it only vaguely specifies a hazy region in the multi-dimensional archetype spectrum. It is therefore easy for one person's interpretation of 'control' to be different to someone else's. E.g. you jumped to a fatigue/attrition deck in RoS's mech warrior, whereas my view defaults to being closer to control warrior in Classic, which had finishers like Grommash Hellscream. While fatigue/attrition decks might be the purest version of control, they are far from the only version and certainly not really what I'm hoping to reappear.
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.
Of course combo will tend to beat control anyway because they don't play the minions that much of a control deck is geared against. The immediate problem with those match-ups is that combo is able to piece everything together before any of the control win conditions can come online. Obviously they'd outrace attrition decks, but there would normally be a bit of to-and-fro with big minion decks, for example. That's not possible with the super-efficient card draw enabling combo to wrap everything up before any control deck can mount any pressure.
By itself, that might not be too bad, since those are bad match-ups for control at the best of times. Where it actually becomes an issue is in the aggressive strategies no longer running out of steam, making it much tougher for control to beat them (there's a reason midrange tends to beat control). That's not a knee-jerk reaction to the early Stormwind meta, that's a reaction to the majority of the post-Outland meta.
I think what people miss when they complain about long games is that those long games are a canvas for players to use any and every strategy they like. If you reach 10 mana, then all the options are available, and even if you don't win, at least you were able to put your plan into practice. If you never get past 7 mana, then that blocks a whole world of strategies from even seeing the light of day. If you want to play a deck that tries to win inside those 7 turns then great! You do you. Nothing is ever going to prevent you from trying. But the meta really needs to accommodate slower games otherwise it shuts out a significant fraction of cards and decks.
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.
Well i personaly haven't met that many Quest Warlocks - sure some but not much. And only once my opponent played a Flesh Giant - so i personaly did not notice a problem with the card. Sure , when the Card was released i was surprised that the original cost is not higher but right now i realy don't see him as the problem.
I do think that Stealer of Souls should get some sort of change just because it fucks up the damage breakpoints to the point of complete unpredictabilityy. I haven't played the Nightshade Matron variant, but my biggest issue with the Stealer OTK stuff is how vulnerable it is to large minions and wide boards because of the lack of actual removal.
I guess we'll have a meta report in a few days that accurately breaks down which builds actually work, but I still suspect Flesh Giant is a huge part of the deck's overall success.
Here's the thing: I don't think its preferable for there to be decks which plays nothing but removals with the win condition being solely attrition. Its even worse when these are the top decks in the meta (control warrior, odd warrior etc.). Curbing the card draw powercreep may help improve their game, but its not necessarily going to make the game fun. Its better, in my view, for control decks to actually have a win condition rather than fill their decks with reactive cards. Control shaman in barrens in a good example of that, being able to control the pace of the early game, while packing a win condition (al'akir + multiple nightmares, or headmaster keltuzad + perpetual flame) of its own.
On the viability of meme decks, I will reiterate what I have said plenty of times, and is reflective in my own deck building philosophy: Everything you build must take into consideration of the current meta. And if aggro is commonplace, and your deck falls to that, it might be better to adapt by playing more anti-aggro tools like taunts. But bear in mind that the win rate will suck either way. You can't build a deck to meme out Elwynn Boar, then complain about the aggro decks farming you. That's exactly why its a meme deck: its a deck made entirely for fun, not for wins. If it were consistently winning, it wouldn't be a meme deck.
I do sympathize with players who wishes to play more for meme than rank, but I feel its a little hypocritical to trumpet in favor of control decks - simply because it makes meme decks more viable.
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.
I think you and @meisterz39 have conflated control and fatigue/pure attrition decks. You have recognised control decks sometimes do have proper win conditions, but nevertheless proceed to talk about them like they are all just fatigue decks that run nothing but removal. Really this is a failing of labeling decks as 'control', 'aggro' and 'combo' when they are on a multi-dimensional spectrum. The 3 basic archetypes are hazy regions within that spectrum, but the play-styles and win conditions can vary quite a lot. So when I talk about control, I mean anything in that hazy region, and certainly not just fatigue decks.
While there are good arguments to be made for keeping the population of those decks reasonably small, they need to be present in some degree else there is no room for anyone to play meme decks. It's one thing to accept you're going to have a bad win rate with a meme deck, and quite another to have to give up because no games are slow enough to ever make any headway at all. Wanting control (or really anything that gives you 10+ turns to work with) to pit meme decks against is not a matter of wanting to up the win rate - I wouldn't be playing meme decks at all if that was the primary concern! - it's about wanting to be able to use our cards and enact cool strategies.
Sure you build meme decks with the meta in mind (typically <10 cards in the deck are actually needed for the meme), but that is of limited help in achieving the meme when every game is either aggro, wherein your only focus is on survival, or super-quick combo, wherein your only focus is on doing as much damage as possible asap. Neither gives you an opportunity to do what you're actually there for. That's where the complaints come from: I don't care that aggro farms meme decks; I do care that the population of decks that give us a hope of enacting the meme is negligible.
I've been playing a lot of the warrior quest since I have gotten it in golden. I have no idea what you are talking about- if anything, it needs to be buffed!
The payoff is often slightly better than [Hearthstone Card (lakarri sacrifice) Not Found] putting on board a 2/2, giving you a 1 attack weapon and dealing 4 damage randomly.
There is no clever way to cheat out pirates like the requirements of other quests have. Another issue is you want to run weapons since the first reward is to draw one, however once you have the Jugg in effect the weapon is more or less a dead card in hand (Gorehowl is an exception but not a great card).
Almost every game with QL Warrior is playing catch-up. It's so bad that often when you finally get Rokara you can't even play her because you need to address the board.
I agree - it was pretty cool on day one but right now it is mostly to slow - even if you get the nut draw and have the Juggernaut early on - most of the time he comes down to late and even if it is early on the impact is most of the time not enough - at least right now! So i would agree to buff this Quest not only because i kinda like it because it realy isn't that powerful against the most played decks right now.
Hunter i would say isn't weak - sure not as strong as anticipated but still playable and strong enough to compete against others.
Well i personaly haven't met that many Quest Warlocks - sure some but not much. And only once my opponent played a Flesh Giant - so i personaly did not notice a problem with the card. Sure , when the Card was released i was surprised that the original cost is not higher but right now i realy don't see him as the problem.
I'm almost exclusively playing Wild and it looks like the meta is healing there. Shortly after release everybody was playing QL Warlock, now the ladder is full of hyper Aggro decks, we're even having our own version of Shadowpriest. The logical next step would be the return of Control lists that counter the aggro fiesta and voilà: we're back at rock-paper-scissors with Secret Mages laughing their asses off because they just don't care.
Right, so what have we, once again, learned about these extremely premature nerf takes everyone?
Questline hunter is one of the most overrated decks in standard, aka gigabad and warrior is barely playable. Vastly overshadowed by other quests such as mage (overplayed), warlock (quest nerf candidate #1) and rogue (quest nerf candidate #2).
Ladder seems to be a bit better now. I've been playing a lot of Quest Warrior (a high-tempo version) and it's killing it. It's not really an aggro deck but a faster midrange one, and it beats the Quest Warlocks and Quest Mages pretty consistently. Raid the Docks still doesn't warrant a nerf though, contrary to the OP's point.
There are a wide variety of decks being played, and that makes this meta a little more fun. Some Elemental Shamans (Whack-A-Gnoll Hammer and Doomhammer variants), Quest Shaman, Aggro Shadow Priest(!), Quest Paladins, Quest Rogues...it's pretty nice! I even tried a Big Warrior list and it's working well too.
The devs might still nerf some Warlock cards to save Wild, if they actually care about that mode. But from my ladder experience, the meta's looking pretty balanced.
1) But I'd argue that its deliberate made that way by the devs, to increase interactivity (and therefore, subjectively, fun). Play a couple of games in classic and suddenly the game may be fairer (Lack of removals means more minion activity) but honestly unless you're specifically playing miracle rogue you're basically playing 1-2 cards per turn. The mechanics were simple, and there's very little reason to think because nearly everything is predictable: druid ramp on 2, zoo curvestone, turn 4 giant, etc.
In order to break that cycle you have to either 1) increase the rate and efficiency of card draw, or 2) increase card generation. They balance that out by designing the cards with a lower statline or at a higher cost. So in effect you're trading tempo for card draw/generation.
2) I wouldn't say that an increased in card draw efficiency makes the game less interesting. Looking at the meta in the earliest history of hearthstone and honestly, the games were fairly predictable and repetitive. The most extreme example would be to look at hunter's history. The early parts were entirely made up of face/midrange hunters that practically played nothing but curvestone. It was not until Master's Call was introduced that we had hunter actually playing off curve and keeping cards in hand for a bigger finish. Similarly shaman in barrens didn't really got anywhere until Primal Dungeoneer was introduced, which then proceed to make possible elemental shaman, doomhammer shaman, and arguably control shaman.
3) We are moving towards a phase where the old definition of control can no longer exist because hearthstone has evolved past curvestone. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. The ultimate objective should be to keep the value just low enough that control decks can exist, but high enough to give decks stuff to do instead of having their stuff repeatedly removed from board every turn. In my view, the best meta should ideally be 50-50 no matter the archetype, and avoiding polarising rock-paper-scissors games.
…
4) That is…until we were given this freakish meta to exist in.
I agree it was very likely deliberate, and I don't disagree with improving draw a bit, but I do think they have massively overshot what was necessary. I actually think priest's card draw is in a good and healthy spot right now it has some again, but it's the outlier. As with shaman a couple of months ago, it looks like it hasn't got much, only because everyone else has a tonne.
Whether it increases interactivity is questionable though. If it mostly benefits aggro and combo, then where is the added interactivity in practice?
Regarding the simple mechanics of Classic, I think that's an entirely separate matter. Part of why I disliked the Barrens meta was because it felt a lot like Classic in terms of its simplicity, and certainly not for lack of card draw. Meanwhile Hearthstone's history is riddled with fancy and interesting cards/effects that didn't need the amount of card draw we have today.
As for the statline reduction - or lack thereof - that's arguably where a lot of power creep exists. Vanilla stats haven't moved an inch since Classic, but the stat cost associated with effects (not just card draw, but including it) has reduced significantly. Tempo loss for card draw is small to nonexistent these days, which is exactly why aggro and combo can afford to run so much of it.
2)
Show Spoiler
Since you raise hunter, I would point out you have forgotten spell and big-beast-recruit hunter, both driven largely by K&C, and both existing before Master's Call arrived. Neither had much in the way of card draw, but they still functioned fine without taking the usual play-minions-on-curve route, partly because there wasn't such a strong need for card draw. The best anyone had was Elven Minstrel, so the amount needed to compete with other classes was far lower than what we have today. Master's Call helped bring (aggro) beast hunter back, but it wasn't required for hunter to be effective as a class.
This is why I think shaman's problem in Barrens was the amount of draw other classes had, rather than truly lacking any itself.
3)
Show Spoiler
I agree a redefinition of 'control' isn't the end of the world, but it does come with problems. Whether we are talking about control as fatigue decks or in the more Classic sense where they actually had finishers, there's a large part of the playerbase that most enjoys those decks. Those players have already taken an in-game beating for the last 16 months, and while I can only speak for myself here, I'm coming to the end of my tether with it.
The collateral damage to meme decks is huge too. These decks often only find success against slow control decks. If those are removed, then cool meme cards like Elwynn Boar might as well not exist.
Idyllic as a perfect 50:50 win rate spread would be, there must always be some degree of rock-paper-scissors, because decks are built to counter other decks. We don't want things quite so polarising as OG quest rogue, but there should be some deviation from 50:50.
4)
Show Spoiler
I fully acknowledge that card draw is only so good as the cards it draws, and it cannot be held solely responsible. Mana reduction and burst from hand are also playing a part that is greatly inflated compared to previous years. Those two again benefit aggro and combo over control. Both have been problematic over the years of course, with a lot of burst damage being sent to the Hall of Fame and mana cheating often being cited as a load of bs.
What really concerns me is the current design philosophy seems to be to push all 3 to extreme levels, which runs completely counter to the design philosophy of the past, which had been explicitly stated to limit burst damage, and was clearly much more reserved with draw and cost reductions.
They might not be changing the core mechanics of the game, but between them they are completely changing what aggro, control and combo even mean. If aggro's not worrying about eking out every last bit of damage because it never runs out of cards, and if combo can play everything so fast it doesn't need to worry about its own survival, and is control doesn't even know what to do anymore, is it really still the same game?
I'm sure lots of people like the changes in design philosophy, but for me it is committing to every design choice that undermines the reason I was playing in the first place. Neither Wild nor Standard really let me play out the shenanigans I log on for anymore, and Classic doesn't even have the cards to try it with. The really frustrating thing is that it isn't burnout. There's lots I want to try in Stormwind, but deep down I know I'd much rather be in any meta between TGT and SoU. (I'd include DoD if it didn't mean pre-nerf Galakrond shaman *shudder*.)
5) Whoops, yes, thanks. It shows how much I use that card! I have now corrected it.
Its taken me a while to respond back, mostly because Ive been a little busier than usual. But just comment on each of your points of response, to my original response to yours;
1. Specifically on this point: "If it mostly benefits aggro and combo, then where is the added interactivity in practice?". If an aggro player can sustain a tempo reload against control up until turn 8 (which was fairly impossible back in the day), that's added interactivity as a result of card draw. Just because control players are forced to play one or two cards per turn up until then, that's not a signal that interaction has not been improved by increased card draw. Besides which, there are examples of control decks that benefited from the increased card draw/generation like control priest.
Also, I stand by my opinion about the tempo loss tradeoff with card draw/generation cards. You are right in pointing out that effects have been added into the vanilla statline, but I'd argue where card draw/generation are concerned this is not exactly true. Most card draw options have either slightly downgraded stats or are conditional because whereby they aren't it tends to create polarisations, like Voracious Reader for 2 mana, Skull of Gul'dan for 5, etc.
Which is why Im all for some nerfs to mage simply because Cram Session and Refreshing Spring Water are specifically making the meta unbearable, because the card draw is insane and the conditions non-existent. Outside of these though, most cards draws are either conditional, at a high mana cost (like Overflow), or comes with a tempo loss.
2. This is not really relevant to the conversation, but I'd like to point out that outside of DK rexxar, deathrattle hunter before Master's Call was mostly a midrange deck. But of course, its not a strictly aggressive one, so you have me on that.
Also, shaman's problem is not strong card draw from other classes. Ive played doomhammer shaman before the midset, and it was honestly card draw that's the problem, because if I have the god hand I just win, so it was never about other classes' reload factor, it was about shaman's own inconsistent gameplan execution.
3 & 4 and conclusion
Here's the thing: I don't think its preferable for there to be decks which plays nothing but removals with the win condition being solely attrition. Its even worse when these are the top decks in the meta (control warrior, odd warrior etc.). Curbing the card draw powercreep may help improve their game, but its not necessarily going to make the game fun. Its better, in my view, for control decks to actually have a win condition rather than fill their decks with reactive cards. Control shaman in barrens in a good example of that, being able to control the pace of the early game, while packing a win condition (al'akir + multiple nightmares, or headmaster keltuzad + perpetual flame) of its own.
On the viability of meme decks, I will reiterate what I have said plenty of times, and is reflective in my own deck building philosophy: Everything you build must take into consideration of the current meta. And if aggro is commonplace, and your deck falls to that, it might be better to adapt by playing more anti-aggro tools like taunts. But bear in mind that the win rate will suck either way. You can't build a deck to meme out Elwynn Boar, then complain about the aggro decks farming you. That's exactly why its a meme deck: its a deck made entirely for fun, not for wins. If it were consistently winning, it wouldn't be a meme deck.
I do sympathize with players who wishes to play more for meme than rank, but I feel its a little hypocritical to trumpet in favor of control decks - simply because it makes meme decks more viable.
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.
The Demon Seed is an absolute menace in Wild, which is pretty unfortunate. But as far as Standard is concerned, my "scalding hot take" is that I actually think it's a brilliantly designed quest. It's a single card that enables a combo archetype focused on Free Admission to tutor out Stealer of Souls/Darkglare/Nightshade Matron, an aggro archetype focused on high tempo self harm cards like Flame Imp to cheat out Flesh Giant, and a control archetype that leverages Soul Rend and Altar of Fire for board clears and disruption respectively, with fatigue as a win con for control mirrors. It's true that not all of those decks are equally successful right now (nor should they be), but all of these archetypes can find ways to use this quest, and I think that's honestly really cool.
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.
Imposter Amogus Rogue Deck List and Guide - Memes and Dreams #19
Finally a deck where I get to use all of these usele... I mean, wonderful legendaries.
Landmarks, the impossible equation ?
The main problem with landmarks is the lack of good landmark removal cards. Right now the only good one is Scorched Earth. Any time we had strong landmarks they ended up being oppressive and had to be nerfed that was the case with The Grand Plaza and The Veiled Temple.
Also your general assessment on landmark power level is good, with exception of Hexcore Foundry that one is pretty good and synergies really well with Teemo deck since you pump your opponent deck full of Puffcaps and force him to draw them with Hexcore.
Overall the mechanic is still ( relatively ) new and the dev are still experimenting with it to see what works and what doesn't, I think they eventually get it right.
Hunter and Warrior Quests are Total Nerf Targets
Very ironic that you would call out others for premature nerf takes when Rogue and Warlock aren't even that powerful either, especially compared to what Mage is still doing.
Hunter and Warrior Quests are Total Nerf Targets
That is a gross misrepresentation of what the quest actually does. You're taking like 25 % of the questline and comparing that in isolation to Lakkari Sacrifice.
First off, the requirements. Lakkari Sacrifice requires you to tear your own hand to shreds. Sure, there are cards that give you a payoff for doing so. And there are a lot of cards that don't. You're at the mercy of RNG as to which ones you end up discarding to determine whether you're actively two-for-oneing yourself or getting an advantage. Meanwhile, the Warrior Quest requires you to develop your board, something you already want to be doing. I.e. there is essentially no requirement other than you have to play a Pirate deck.
Secondly, the payoff. Lakkari Sacrifice: pay 5 mana to subtract one slot from your board. You then get two 3/2s every turn. It's a massive tempo loss that brings a steady benefit in the long run...assuming we consider two easy-to-kill minions a benefit. You can easily just lose the board to a control deck since those are stuffed with minor AoE that will just wipe your quest reward every turn, while they build a board of their own. The Warrior Quest: draw a weapon for free, deal 2x2 damage for free, then get a 7/7 for 5 mana that subtracts one board slot to get you a weapon (inevitable damage), a pirate (potential damage similar to Lakkari Sacrifice) and shoots 2x2 damage (inevitable damage) every turn. Those things are not on par with each other at all.
Even ignoring the sub-rewards along the way the Warrior Questline way outshines Lakkari Sacrifice and not just because you get a 5 mana 7/7 along with it. You can't keep the Warrior Questline contained because the reward isn't two slow minions that might do something next turn. It's one slow minion and then two immediately impactful rewards that the opponent can do nothing about. Also the rewards trigger at the start of your turn so if the minion happens to have rush or charge, your opponent has no opportunity to respond to its presence.
The questline is definitely not in need of a buff. It may be the case that in standard, the deck you have to build around the questline may not be great, but that might be due to a lack of support, not due to flaws with the questline. I wouldn't know, since I don't play standard. But I can tell you that in Wild the questline is doing quite well. It's not the top dog, but at least a solid tier 2 deck that seems to be actually better than the non-quest Pirate Warriors used to be, or is at least on par with them. That's not something you'd get out of a weak questline.
Landmarks, the impossible equation ?
Hey.
I'd like to start a topic on landmarks. I love landmarks (as a mechanic). I hate (most of currently existing) landmarks. Historically, I've been playing an equivalent on Shadowverse ((countdown) amulets) a lot.
One of my concern about LoR landmarks is that it shares the same issues than shadowverse ones (board management can become very tedious, the high risk of drawing the deck "upside down" (meaning here drawing very few early game landmarks and a lot of landmark based spells/allies with not enough targets), the high dependency between amulets and amulets related spells, the sluggishness, the tendency to get stomped by faster decks). But that's not really the biggest issue, that's the price to pay such a type of deck centered about future payback.
The main issues, I think, is that the average power level of landmarks in this game is bad. Some of them are abysmal by my now average experience in LoR and high in Shadowverse. And while I'm far from good at LoR for now, current meta snapshot actually demonstrates how little landmarks, including the ones incompatibles with Taliyah, are played.
Of course, some of them are good, very good even, and you do see them in meta decks. Namely, Preservarium, Emperor's dais, Blighted Ravine, Frozen Thrall, Sun Disc. There is a couple others which I deem playable even if non meta : Ancient preparations, Hibernating Rockbear, Star Spring.
About others, eh... what I think their power level is, feel free to share your own view or enlight me :
Ripper's bay - Bad/Meh. Inexpensive but take a board slot, something you do not want in an agressive deck.
Rockfall Path - Abysmal. It's sluggish, it's easy to play around, it doesn't help against aggro decks. It requires Countdown 1 to be remotely playable.
Startipped Peak - Bad. The fact it's random and doesn't give you a card immediately make it a LARGELY worse Preservarium, which you'll always play over this. Requires to provide first card immediately or cost 1 less.
Hexcore Foundry - Abysmal. 2021 and CCG designers still think anyone would play a card which will make opponent draw (especially aggro decks). Genius. Even if a mill pop this is too expensive. Requires to cost 2 less.
Inner Sanctum - Abysmal. Even Lebonk Sivir doesn't want that shit. If you pay it for its initial cost you deserve to lose. And Frozen thrall allies already had the only keyword you need. Requires to provide at least twice as much cards.
Monastery of Hirana - Abysmally abysmal. Providing bounces you can't use in combat nor as an answer to a spell (which are 99% of bounce usage in this game. Wow.
Spiral Stairs - Abysmally abysmal. Is EXPENSIVE and SLUGGISH as fuck for what it provides. The spell is slow and fleeting, making it very very ackward to use and prone to every single counterplay ever (counterspells, removals, ...). There is much better ways to use overhelm, and naturally Frozen Thrall decks won't need or play this garbage card. Requires to cost 2 less or cost 1 less and countdown 2.
The Grand Plaza - Average. It's a bit expensive but the effect is kinda good. There might be some stuff to do with that card.
The Scargrounds - Below average. In an appropriate deck it could be interesting, but it's a bit expensive for what it provides. Should cost 1 less.
The Slaughter docks - Average. Toss/Sea monsters decks doesn't seems to be favored but I suspect should a deck about it becomes okay this card will probably be added. Surely sometimes it will summon a Sea Scarab but most of the time it will pay for itself later, and it helps getting deep.
The twisted treeline - Bad. The follower isn't massive and the condition isn't exactly easy to trigger. And worse, it requires the fearsome followers to attack meaning you'll not be able to attack with Vilemaw on the same turn, making it virtually idle for this turn and next one. Requires for Vilemaw to be summoned and attacking immediately.
Salt spire - Abysmal. Way too expensive and slow for what it provides. Requires to cost 1 less and countdown 1.
The Veiled Temple - Decent/Average. I rate it this way assuming it can trigger on the turn you plays it, making it cost virtually 2 on a spell heavy deck. The +1/0 is nice to have, but the probably important effect is the discount itself, actually raising you capability to turn the table by being a disguised ramp, and more importantly, being disguised as having up to 15 mana a turn in an appropriate deck. I suspect the future may give this card a potential.
Eye of the Ra-Horak - Average/Bad. It's very expensive but it being countdown 1, it may help you to slow down the opponent. Per se it's correct. The main card issue however is its design. First issue is the Daybreak restriction, making it much weaker to seek with Imagined possibilities or Stoneweaving. Second issue is the fact the copy is countdown 2 and not 3. Meaning the copy will trigger on opponent defensive turn (because let's be honest most of the time you'll play this amulet on your offensive turn), which limited usage but a massive counterpush. So only a Malphite deck really want that. Should cost 1 less.
Noxkraya Arena - Bad. In an appropriate deck it MIGHT have some use but it's expensive as fuck.
Reavers's Row - Bad ? I'm not totally sure, maybe a 1 cost follower deck could be fun ? Expensive as fuck for what it provides, but some meme potential.
Sandswept Tomb - Bad. It's Emperor's dais in largely worse. Very expensive. Maybe in a reputation deck, but beside that it's probably too weak for anything.
Targon's Peak - Meme. With some intellectual honesty and having played an equivalent in Shadowverse I should rate it abysmal. But I'm gonna play it regardless for the glory of the meme so I won't.
The University of Piltover - Abysmally abysmal. The design is stupid as fuck and an insult to the glory of the meme. First design flaw is that is it IMCOMPATIBLE with the discard queen, Jinx. In fact, at the beginning of the turn this will empty your hand (and therefore make Jinx gain level), but you won't get Jinx draw nether a rocket, making the combo meh as fuck. The only good part of this card is that it seems the cards always cost less or equal than your starting turn mana. Wish I didn't spend 3 of my jokers on this garbage.
Vaults of Helia - Bad. There is probably a specific deck design to do to force summoned allies, making it some kind of tutor (and use ally generating spells for more fodder). But it's expensive as fuck for what it does and it's risky (empty board at the end of any turn = you probably can ff).
The howling abyss - Average/Bad. Very expensive, so to be played exclusively on your offensive turn. Also it's random, meaning you'll sometimes get champions which does virtually nothing useful for you. The thing which makes it close to average is the fact it's Freljord, so ramp can help making this thing happens. You'll just hope not to get Teemo out of this, as well as several mechanic specific champions such as Yasuo. Wish it costed 1 less.
Your view on this?
Hearthstone Access - A New Mod Improves Accessibility for Blind and Visually Impaired Players
Exactly, thank goodness someone who can see the problem!
This mod is a sort of interpreter or intermediary with the graphical interface (both inbound and outbound): a blind person can play the game, but also an algorithm!
And well, regarding whether or not an intelligent bot can reach legend... well, the standard mode is currently pretty straightforward, so it would be very easy to program an algorithm to play a specific overpowered deck (and we have a couple of them).
Card draw power creep is a major issue
I agree we have to take some care when transferring terms between games, although my involvement with MtG has been basically nothing beyond watching ProJared play the old Shandalar game, so my conception of the term 'control' and its relationship to other archetypes is squarely within the Hearthstone setting.
I think the bigger problem with the term is that, as with aggro and combo, it only vaguely specifies a hazy region in the multi-dimensional archetype spectrum. It is therefore easy for one person's interpretation of 'control' to be different to someone else's. E.g. you jumped to a fatigue/attrition deck in RoS's mech warrior, whereas my view defaults to being closer to control warrior in Classic, which had finishers like Grommash Hellscream. While fatigue/attrition decks might be the purest version of control, they are far from the only version and certainly not really what I'm hoping to reappear.
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.
Of course combo will tend to beat control anyway because they don't play the minions that much of a control deck is geared against. The immediate problem with those match-ups is that combo is able to piece everything together before any of the control win conditions can come online. Obviously they'd outrace attrition decks, but there would normally be a bit of to-and-fro with big minion decks, for example. That's not possible with the super-efficient card draw enabling combo to wrap everything up before any control deck can mount any pressure.
By itself, that might not be too bad, since those are bad match-ups for control at the best of times. Where it actually becomes an issue is in the aggressive strategies no longer running out of steam, making it much tougher for control to beat them (there's a reason midrange tends to beat control). That's not a knee-jerk reaction to the early Stormwind meta, that's a reaction to the majority of the post-Outland meta.
I think what people miss when they complain about long games is that those long games are a canvas for players to use any and every strategy they like. If you reach 10 mana, then all the options are available, and even if you don't win, at least you were able to put your plan into practice. If you never get past 7 mana, then that blocks a whole world of strategies from even seeing the light of day. If you want to play a deck that tries to win inside those 7 turns then great! You do you. Nothing is ever going to prevent you from trying. But the meta really needs to accommodate slower games otherwise it shuts out a significant fraction of cards and decks.
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.
Scalding Hot Take: The Demon Seed is not the problem
I do think that Stealer of Souls should get some sort of change just because it fucks up the damage breakpoints to the point of complete unpredictabilityy. I haven't played the Nightshade Matron variant, but my biggest issue with the Stealer OTK stuff is how vulnerable it is to large minions and wide boards because of the lack of actual removal.
I guess we'll have a meta report in a few days that accurately breaks down which builds actually work, but I still suspect Flesh Giant is a huge part of the deck's overall success.
Card draw power creep is a major issue
I think you and @meisterz39 have conflated control and fatigue/pure attrition decks. You have recognised control decks sometimes do have proper win conditions, but nevertheless proceed to talk about them like they are all just fatigue decks that run nothing but removal. Really this is a failing of labeling decks as 'control', 'aggro' and 'combo' when they are on a multi-dimensional spectrum. The 3 basic archetypes are hazy regions within that spectrum, but the play-styles and win conditions can vary quite a lot. So when I talk about control, I mean anything in that hazy region, and certainly not just fatigue decks.
While there are good arguments to be made for keeping the population of those decks reasonably small, they need to be present in some degree else there is no room for anyone to play meme decks. It's one thing to accept you're going to have a bad win rate with a meme deck, and quite another to have to give up because no games are slow enough to ever make any headway at all. Wanting control (or really anything that gives you 10+ turns to work with) to pit meme decks against is not a matter of wanting to up the win rate - I wouldn't be playing meme decks at all if that was the primary concern! - it's about wanting to be able to use our cards and enact cool strategies.
Sure you build meme decks with the meta in mind (typically <10 cards in the deck are actually needed for the meme), but that is of limited help in achieving the meme when every game is either aggro, wherein your only focus is on survival, or super-quick combo, wherein your only focus is on doing as much damage as possible asap. Neither gives you an opportunity to do what you're actually there for. That's where the complaints come from: I don't care that aggro farms meme decks; I do care that the population of decks that give us a hope of enacting the meme is negligible.
Hunter and Warrior Quests are Total Nerf Targets
I agree - it was pretty cool on day one but right now it is mostly to slow - even if you get the nut draw and have the Juggernaut early on - most of the time he comes down to late and even if it is early on the impact is most of the time not enough - at least right now! So i would agree to buff this Quest not only because i kinda like it because it realy isn't that powerful against the most played decks right now.
Hunter i would say isn't weak - sure not as strong as anticipated but still playable and strong enough to compete against others.
Scalding Hot Take: The Demon Seed is not the problem
Well i personaly haven't met that many Quest Warlocks - sure some but not much. And only once my opponent played a Flesh Giant - so i personaly did not notice a problem with the card. Sure , when the Card was released i was surprised that the original cost is not higher but right now i realy don't see him as the problem.
Stealer of Souls is what mostly closes out the game once i'm up against Quest Warlock - and in Combination with a Nightshade Matron that discard a Hand of Gul'dan is insane - so for me, the Problem would be Stealer of Souls.
Scalding Hot Take: The Demon Seed is not the problem
Iunno about that one chief...
https://twitter.com/corbettgames/status/1423926232203239429?s=20
Biggest upside for me is that secret mage got some (hard) counters, in the form of odd hunter especially.
Absolutely blessed, screw everyone who still plays that cookie cutter deck after god knows how many years it's been around.
Quest Hate
...then what should cards which you build the majority of your deck around, be?
Hunter and Warrior Quests are Total Nerf Targets
Right, so what have we, once again, learned about these extremely premature nerf takes everyone?
Questline hunter is one of the most overrated decks in standard, aka gigabad and warrior is barely playable. Vastly overshadowed by other quests such as mage (overplayed), warlock (quest nerf candidate #1) and rogue (quest nerf candidate #2).
Quest Hate
Quests shouldn't be win-conditions.
New Priest Minion - Voidtouched Attendant
care to share?
Hunter and Warrior Quests are Total Nerf Targets
Ladder seems to be a bit better now. I've been playing a lot of Quest Warrior (a high-tempo version) and it's killing it. It's not really an aggro deck but a faster midrange one, and it beats the Quest Warlocks and Quest Mages pretty consistently. Raid the Docks still doesn't warrant a nerf though, contrary to the OP's point.
There are a wide variety of decks being played, and that makes this meta a little more fun. Some Elemental Shamans (Whack-A-Gnoll Hammer and Doomhammer variants), Quest Shaman, Aggro Shadow Priest(!), Quest Paladins, Quest Rogues...it's pretty nice! I even tried a Big Warrior list and it's working well too.
The devs might still nerf some Warlock cards to save Wild, if they actually care about that mode. But from my ladder experience, the meta's looking pretty balanced.
Card draw power creep is a major issue
Its taken me a while to respond back, mostly because Ive been a little busier than usual. But just comment on each of your points of response, to my original response to yours;
1. Specifically on this point: "If it mostly benefits aggro and combo, then where is the added interactivity in practice?". If an aggro player can sustain a tempo reload against control up until turn 8 (which was fairly impossible back in the day), that's added interactivity as a result of card draw. Just because control players are forced to play one or two cards per turn up until then, that's not a signal that interaction has not been improved by increased card draw. Besides which, there are examples of control decks that benefited from the increased card draw/generation like control priest.
Also, I stand by my opinion about the tempo loss tradeoff with card draw/generation cards. You are right in pointing out that effects have been added into the vanilla statline, but I'd argue where card draw/generation are concerned this is not exactly true. Most card draw options have either slightly downgraded stats or are conditional because whereby they aren't it tends to create polarisations, like Voracious Reader for 2 mana, Skull of Gul'dan for 5, etc.
Which is why Im all for some nerfs to mage simply because Cram Session and Refreshing Spring Water are specifically making the meta unbearable, because the card draw is insane and the conditions non-existent. Outside of these though, most cards draws are either conditional, at a high mana cost (like Overflow), or comes with a tempo loss.
2. This is not really relevant to the conversation, but I'd like to point out that outside of DK rexxar, deathrattle hunter before Master's Call was mostly a midrange deck. But of course, its not a strictly aggressive one, so you have me on that.
Also, shaman's problem is not strong card draw from other classes. Ive played doomhammer shaman before the midset, and it was honestly card draw that's the problem, because if I have the god hand I just win, so it was never about other classes' reload factor, it was about shaman's own inconsistent gameplan execution.
3 & 4 and conclusion
Here's the thing: I don't think its preferable for there to be decks which plays nothing but removals with the win condition being solely attrition. Its even worse when these are the top decks in the meta (control warrior, odd warrior etc.). Curbing the card draw powercreep may help improve their game, but its not necessarily going to make the game fun. Its better, in my view, for control decks to actually have a win condition rather than fill their decks with reactive cards. Control shaman in barrens in a good example of that, being able to control the pace of the early game, while packing a win condition (al'akir + multiple nightmares, or headmaster keltuzad + perpetual flame) of its own.
On the viability of meme decks, I will reiterate what I have said plenty of times, and is reflective in my own deck building philosophy: Everything you build must take into consideration of the current meta. And if aggro is commonplace, and your deck falls to that, it might be better to adapt by playing more anti-aggro tools like taunts. But bear in mind that the win rate will suck either way. You can't build a deck to meme out Elwynn Boar, then complain about the aggro decks farming you. That's exactly why its a meme deck: its a deck made entirely for fun, not for wins. If it were consistently winning, it wouldn't be a meme deck.
I do sympathize with players who wishes to play more for meme than rank, but I feel its a little hypocritical to trumpet in favor of control decks - simply because it makes meme decks more viable.
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.
First Look at Hearthstone's Battlegrounds New Interface for Cosmetic Heroes and Bartenders
Might be for streamers.
Scalding Hot Take: The Demon Seed is not the problem
The Demon Seed is an absolute menace in Wild, which is pretty unfortunate. But as far as Standard is concerned, my "scalding hot take" is that I actually think it's a brilliantly designed quest. It's a single card that enables a combo archetype focused on Free Admission to tutor out Stealer of Souls/Darkglare/Nightshade Matron, an aggro archetype focused on high tempo self harm cards like Flame Imp to cheat out Flesh Giant, and a control archetype that leverages Soul Rend and Altar of Fire for board clears and disruption respectively, with fatigue as a win con for control mirrors. It's true that not all of those decks are equally successful right now (nor should they be), but all of these archetypes can find ways to use this quest, and I think that's honestly really cool.
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.
Satisfied Squirrel
Great artwork.
Mailbox Dancer
Great artwork.
Heavy Plate
Great artwork.
Cowardly Grunt
I love the little wobble he does.
Pizza Stone
Is this the only card back without an animation?