I think it would be great for a Hearthstone 2.0, but it's probably too late for the current version.
(Honestly, I believe 2.0 should be a non-free version with advanced complexity and a completely different business model, and they should keep old-school Hearthstone around for free players and newbies. I am also aware that it will probably never happen.)
If you're on a tight budget, you should never craft anything in the first couple of weeks, period.
It was only one week after release that they announced the first nerfs and said they would probably be nerfing more in January.
So honestly, they did everything they could to keep budget players informed.
PLUS, these nerfs do not completely trash the decks in question. Every single one of these archetypes will still be strong after the nerf. (Not as strong as Quest Priest, which they ignored for some reason, but that's a different conversation.)
If we go by milling in terms of hearthstone, that was just making the opponent overdraw, I think that would be fair since most ways to print cards in this vein are just cards that'd draw both cards, which is something many decks would want it would still most likely decimate control decks, but I think that creates more of a challenge in making a control deck that is able to pressure someone down instead of durdling until late game to slam a bunch of stats in play.
I think it's safe to say that when someone talks about "mill decks" or "mill as a strategy," they are talking about killing the opponent by running them out of cards -- milling as a win condition.
Forcing the occasional overdraw has never been controversial as far as I know.
You mean like the two months of Evolve-stone leading up to the launch of DoD?
Or the nearly three months we spent with cheaper Lyra's Pocket Galaxy and Extra Arms?
What a joke.
Try this: Mark a 2019 calendar in two colors, red for a meta containing cards that need to be nerfed and eventually get nerfed, and green for a meta containing no cards that need to be nerfed (indicating a balanced meta). Guess which color you'll see a lot more of.
First, they should spend more time worrying about balance before adding anything new.
In that vein, however, some sweeping changes in the name of balance would be most welcome and would seem like new additions.
They should completely overhaul some of the classes (including evergreen cards, class-identity keywords, and hero powers) so that they are not constantly becoming problematic.
It does not matter how much patience or skill is required to play a mill deck. Patience and skill are not the criteria for whether something should be allowed in the game. The fact that it exists in other games is also not a criterion.
Decks with milling as a win condition should be actively discouraged in Standard because Hearthstone lacks the mechanical infrastructure to allow a player to tech against it. Saying you should "learn to play around it" is a ridiculous oversimplification. For some archetypes, that is literally impossible.
If they print an evergreen neutral card that lets me move my "graveyard" into my deck, I might reconsider my position.
I love the idea of Crimson, but I've never seen it work super well.
What I like best about Noxus overall is that, even though it's considered the "aggressive" region, it can produce a huge variety of effects. It's not going to be the first region I go for, but I'm glad playing against it won't be entirely predictable.
Before the LoR beta, I had no idea there was so much lore behind LoL. MOBAs don't interest me at all, so I'd never had a reason to look into it. But wow, there's a lot to digest! I've been happily reading up on everything so I can be caught up for open beta and full launch in 2020.
To answer the original question: Ezreal is my favorite hero, and I love me some spells, so I definitely see some P&Z in my future. And since Yasuo is my other favorite, I'm sure I'll try a fair amount of Ionia. Will I smash the two together? Probably, but only time will tell.
I don't mind Deny. I think there should be some inherent risk in using powerful spells. In this case, the only time that risk exists at all is when you're up against Ionia. The fact that no other region can use it makes the risk more acceptable.
There is also a risk in including Deny, or in using Ionia just for access to Deny when another region might make more sense for your deck: If you go up against a deck that doesn't depend on expensive spells, you've got up to three dead cards in your deck.
By definition, lackeys are non-collectable tokens, so Erkh can't actually be one.
Also, if he were a lackey, he could be created by lackey generators, and I'm sure that cannot be the case.
We're running out of week ...
Well, his bio is in the article, so ...
I think it would be great for a Hearthstone 2.0, but it's probably too late for the current version.
(Honestly, I believe 2.0 should be a non-free version with advanced complexity and a completely different business model, and they should keep old-school Hearthstone around for free players and newbies. I am also aware that it will probably never happen.)
I hope the hero power is Arcane Craftiness. I love that one!
That would not be a playable card, so it's not going to happen.
In fact, I suspect this will very frequently hit a card the opponent is perfectly happy to play.
A cheap Paladin Mech with Reborn is very, very frightening.
Discover is not the same as purely random. It's not even close.
Calling this an RNGsus card is a bit melodramatic. It's fine.
It's not that it's oppressive or prone to consistent abuse; it's just too much of a high roll and should not be happening.
No, you don't plan for it, but it's waaaaaay too much when it does happen.
If you're on a tight budget, you should never craft anything in the first couple of weeks, period.
It was only one week after release that they announced the first nerfs and said they would probably be nerfing more in January.
So honestly, they did everything they could to keep budget players informed.
PLUS, these nerfs do not completely trash the decks in question. Every single one of these archetypes will still be strong after the nerf. (Not as strong as Quest Priest, which they ignored for some reason, but that's a different conversation.)
I am ready to blow my entire Hearthstone budget on this game.
I think it's safe to say that when someone talks about "mill decks" or "mill as a strategy," they are talking about killing the opponent by running them out of cards -- milling as a win condition.
Forcing the occasional overdraw has never been controversial as far as I know.
"Quick reactions to game balance"?
You mean like the two months of Evolve-stone leading up to the launch of DoD?
Or the nearly three months we spent with cheaper Lyra's Pocket Galaxy and Extra Arms?
What a joke.
Try this: Mark a 2019 calendar in two colors, red for a meta containing cards that need to be nerfed and eventually get nerfed, and green for a meta containing no cards that need to be nerfed (indicating a balanced meta). Guess which color you'll see a lot more of.
First, they should spend more time worrying about balance before adding anything new.
In that vein, however, some sweeping changes in the name of balance would be most welcome and would seem like new additions.
They should completely overhaul some of the classes (including evergreen cards, class-identity keywords, and hero powers) so that they are not constantly becoming problematic.
It does not matter how much patience or skill is required to play a mill deck. Patience and skill are not the criteria for whether something should be allowed in the game. The fact that it exists in other games is also not a criterion.
Decks with milling as a win condition should be actively discouraged in Standard because Hearthstone lacks the mechanical infrastructure to allow a player to tech against it. Saying you should "learn to play around it" is a ridiculous oversimplification. For some archetypes, that is literally impossible.
If they print an evergreen neutral card that lets me move my "graveyard" into my deck, I might reconsider my position.
I love the idea of Crimson, but I've never seen it work super well.
What I like best about Noxus overall is that, even though it's considered the "aggressive" region, it can produce a huge variety of effects. It's not going to be the first region I go for, but I'm glad playing against it won't be entirely predictable.
Know what would make this deck list better? Links instead of full card images.
Before the LoR beta, I had no idea there was so much lore behind LoL. MOBAs don't interest me at all, so I'd never had a reason to look into it. But wow, there's a lot to digest! I've been happily reading up on everything so I can be caught up for open beta and full launch in 2020.
To answer the original question: Ezreal is my favorite hero, and I love me some spells, so I definitely see some P&Z in my future. And since Yasuo is my other favorite, I'm sure I'll try a fair amount of Ionia. Will I smash the two together? Probably, but only time will tell.
I don't mind Deny. I think there should be some inherent risk in using powerful spells. In this case, the only time that risk exists at all is when you're up against Ionia. The fact that no other region can use it makes the risk more acceptable.
There is also a risk in including Deny, or in using Ionia just for access to Deny when another region might make more sense for your deck: If you go up against a deck that doesn't depend on expensive spells, you've got up to three dead cards in your deck.
This may seem like a stupid question, but is your Murloc build totally aggro or more midrange?
I ask because 1) both are possible, and 2) if you're aggro, you may just have to accept that you cannot win this matchup most of the time.