So once a warlock hps once and goes to 28, they cant be otked?
You have a smooth brain
Nah, that would be you by trying to change long established definitions.
Pinging your start of turn 1 health opponent on turn 8 is not an OTK. It took you 7 turns to get your opponent to 1 health.
You are wrong. You remain wrong. You will always be wrong!
Your smooth brain interpretation of the definition, and defences of your stance, do not support you how you think they do.
1 Like
i kind of want to know whats going on, but at the same time it says hidden reply, so im going to just believe that everything going on here is fine
i would say that 18 health to zero in one turn is otk range, paladins can do 18 with the new weapon
1 Like
The main reason for one turn kills is to keep control decks in check or else infinite value decks would be strong if im right.
4 Likes
it does feel bad to lose to it
1 Like
OTKs fall on a spectrum, not a dichotomy. Thatâs at least how Iâve seen it used.
B i totally agree this game is full of strange mechanics, a lot of players think there are unknown algorithms and the games are even pre-ordered, personally i use hearthstone only as a pastime but i wouldnât give a single dollar to blizzard for any of its games, i think in future many things will come to light
Lol by their definition, literally every kill is a one turn kill. Makes zero sense to even have the term otk in that case.
Otk has always meant you go from full health to zero in one turn, in the sense that a combo builds up all their power to one shot you.
The term âone shottingâ is the same thing as otk. One shotting in an RPG means you take one swing or shot and the enemy dies in 1 hit. In card games, itâs called otk and means the same thing.
Thatâs THE meaning. Anyone using the terms differently than that arenât using the terms correctly.
This whole âlast damage to kill you = one turn kill even if the last damage is 1â thought in this thread is ridiculously funny.
5 Likes
I was under the impression an OTK didnât necessarily have to deal 30+ (there are smaller bursts, like Astalor or a low infused Denathrius). Learn something new every day.
Yeah, itâs doing max health damage all in one turn.
If you can only do 29 damage in one turn and then 1 damage next turn, itâs not a one turn kill, itâs a 2 turn kill.
But if you do 15 one turn, then they heal to full then next turn you take them from full health to 0 itâs an otk.
The important word in otk is one. Thatâs why terms like ftk exist (first turn kill). If you kill someone on your 2nd turn we wouldnât call it a ftk would we? Same thing applies to otk.
5 Likes
Understood, a warlock that self damages to 20, who is then killed in one turn is not a otk
You also have a smooth brain
Correct, because the warlock was not at full health when the opponent did their damage/combo. Youâre picking up on this fairly well now. Sorry if the concept was super hard for you to understand.
You earn 1 new wrinkle in your brain now.
5 Likes
In the interest of seamless communication, itâs good to know the popularly used definition of a term like OTK. You may believe it shouldnât be defined in the way itâs used, but there isnât much you can do about that.
4 Likes
Well said, Kills.
5 Likes
Wow. This conversation went from whether OTK should exist, to what is OTK so fastâŚ
OTK has always existed in games like this as far as I know.
It should remain, but it should be hard to execute: (aka unreliable). And to my mind, not before turn five, and seven would be even better.
I have no opinion on what the criteria for OTK is, so donât bother coming for me.
2 Likes
I think a better term is combo then ?
To respond to the non-semantic arguments here, which are obviously a total waste of timeâŚ
Yeah Iâd prefer turn 10, as in nerfed right out of competitive viability⌠but still totally doable vs decks with no actual gameplan that just wanna durdle.
I agree the infinite value control decks in Hearthstone (resurrection priest, cubelock etc) are also chock full of bad play patterns, but I donât think answering one set of degenerate/linear/boring play patterns with another is how you build strong metas with fun, dynamic gameplay⌠So yeah, I believe this is technically accurate but not really an argument for OTKs per se, and more just another facet of HSâs design flawsâŚ
Iâm a wild player btw, and the OTK/infinite value stuff is especially egregious in that format.
All my 2c, sorry if I hurt anyoneâs feelings 
What are We actually talking about here? Standard? Wild? And why wouldnât OTK exist?
Most of the OTK decks that I have seen are the result of years worth of cards piling up in Wild.
1 Like
I did specifically say I was talking about wild
Well, again this is my personal opinion and I apologize if I hurt anyoneâs feelings, but I do not think the play patterns in those decks are great examples of fun, dynamic, strategic multiplayer gameplay.
And remember Iâm not saying they shouldnât exist⌠just nerfed out of competitive viability. I think it would warp the design of too many cards to make it totally impossible to pull off OTKs ever, I just personally donât think those play patterns should be enabled to the point where they happen on a regular basis because games against those decks are a real slog, extremely long/boring. Again, my personal opinion and I do apologize if I hurt anyoneâs feelingsâŚ
Yup, 100% - maintaining fun eternal formats is really hard, and not exactly costworthy as eternal formats donât exactly push ppl to buy packs.
For the record Blizzard does seem to understand that most people feel this way as they have a long track record of nerfing OTK shenanigans, but in general I do feel they could/should be catching this stuff earlier in development and definitely shouldnât be leaning on them to counteract other toxic decks/strategies. I would very much prefer them putting in the (considerable) effort required to actually maintain fun/dynamic play patterns in their metas.
All my 2c
1 Like
Well, you guys derailed the thread beautifully, but to the point.
Itâs should exist, they just need to be either slow or need a piece on the board beforehand.
1 Like