Look above, just posted the thread you embarrass yourself. Where several people post data you ignore. You lying and claiming the opposite isn’t how debates work, but it is projection and gaslighting on your part. Because it’s clear you’re just trying to start the same fight with the same (non-stats), so just go there and repeat your lies some more.
Here it is again: Robes of protection? Calling BS, just wait for nerfs
Show me where you or anybody else in that thread had evidence that mage is at 50% winrate like was originally claimed
Don’t respond with anything else, you’re being asked to back up what you say to point out how baseless it is or stop posting your toxic nonsense
You really do just use Qanon logic. Pretend you don’t see the evidence clearly in front of you while making up BS. It’s repeatedly posted, and you act obtuse. I’m not going to hold your hand any more then I already have, now be an adult .
At this point I’m putting you on ignore, cause it’s clear you’re just gonna use the same bad-faith arguments and lies over and over again.
I mean at legend mage is sub 50% win rate so not entirely sure what statistics you are referring to. I haven’t seen a mage on the ladder in days. Thats just a fun deck its not competitive at all. The deck performs better below legend bc many of those folks are playing bad decks or are not as experienced.
I find that very… let’s use the word strange… that you say I’m ignoring data when it’s me who has shown you the data which you say is false and any time I ask you for an evidence source to back what you’re saying you either can’t or won’t. Projecting or something?
He doesn’t have statistics, he just has head cannon. That’s his entire arguement style. Look through the thread I posted. It’s mostly just him making wild accusing; several people providing links data and evidence refuting him, and him responding. “hur… dur… me no see evidence.”
Complete bad faith lies are all he has.
It’s only stealer of souls for me, darkglare does nothing broken in that deck
Again just to clarify, all I’ve ever done is ask you for evidence which you have repeatedly been unable to show and it’s important that that’s highlighted
You keep making personal comments but all you’re being asked to do is back up your claims and you don’t, because you can’t
hes keeps repeating there is some data he saw and nobody else did
and says since nobody can prove he didnt saw this hidden data whatever he says is the truth
im pretty sure this is a well known fallacy people love to use in these forums
Yea. It’s hard to tell if they do it cause they are trolling or cause they are dumb. Either way though, best to ignore them once it becomes obvious.
That’s kind of a reach when I’ve posted data to back what I say multiple times and you just don’t like it and didn’t do it yourself. Again,like moonchilde, can you show where you think what you said happened? That shouldn’t be hard but moonchilde couldn’t despite being asked multiple times
It’s really easy to make personal comments like you’ve won or something but any time you’re asked to back what you say - you don’t
Why are you whining on warlocks rofl??? Have you seen paladin? And ye mages
Shadow pretty much hit the nail on the head here…
Sorry pal but what you might think whining and complaining is… that’s just unfortunate raw fact.
Card games all go through these same burning hoops of overpowered releases.
But it doesn’t take a genius to see how the mage and warlock quest lines clearly out muscle ALL of the other ones… that alone makes for a VERY SAD release of a new set…
Interesting you say that, especially given that the data BLIZZARD THEMSELVES RELEASED show that, you know, you’re wrong. They actually aren’t that strong, particularly the Mage one which isn’t even in the top ten. But I guess you would know more then Blizzard, wouldn’t you.
You are literally overreacting on warlock, i played ever since the patch, and it doesnt go in 2-3turns as u make it seem to be, did u forget about rogue? 2/2 part1 3/3 druid part 1
Mage 3/3 shaman 3/3 paladin too, only warlock with 6/6 for part 1