Sure, why don’t you define Timmy deck for me and I’ll see if I can describe something that meets your definition. And it better not be “Timmy = OTK”.
And I’m not surprised you don’t want to engage with my actual ideas and would rather criticize me for arguing with you at all - this whole discussion started with your attempt to bully a new player, remember?
A Timmy deck is a deck with a somewhat dificult to pull off but flashy finisher that is generally more satisfying than the norm to the player playing with it.
True. 30 generally suffices.
LOL what game are you playing?
Yeah my thought when I read that… was waiting for you to debunk that post.
That’s one bad lethal definition if I’ve ever seen one.
If we’re breaking it down then what you described is actually “Presenting lethal” which is entirely different from “Having lethal”.
If you’re at 10 life and I have a Pyroblast in my hand that you don’t know about I HAVE lethal.
If you’re at 10 life and I have 10 power on board that will kill you when it swings back to my turn then I am PRESENTING lethal. You could make it not be lethal and as such I do not have lethal. If I did you would be dead.
If this thread is going to turn into this nitpicky stuff then using the correct terms is going to end up being very important. Admittedly the above gets a bit touch-and-go depending on a lot of factors but as a basic representation of the two it works well enough.
Here’s what you need to understand: https://articles.starcitygames.com/articles/whos-the-beatdown/
It’s a strategy article written for Magic the Gathering, so depending on your level of familiarity you might not get all the examples. But the specific decks aren’t the point.
Edit: actually rereading the article real quick it’s got a LOT of Magic terminology. I’m going to write a Hearthstone translation.
Edit2: Nevermind, it’d be harder than I thought. Or at least, not now.
Sometimes interactivity means me having a board for you to deal with, because if I don’t kill you first you’re going to win. I’m the beatdown, you’re the control. I can tell you like being the control.
Sometimes interactivity means you having a board for me to deal with, because if you don’t kill me first I’m going to win. You’re the beatdown, I’m the control. That’s what an OTK deck is: a deck that’s more control than control. I know you don’t like being the beatdown, and I absolutely get that it’s not something some kinds of decks are built for. But it’s literally the same thing you do to traditional aggro all the time, just with the tables turned. It’s not fundamentally different, it’s not breaking the rules, it’s just a change in who has inevitability. Get over it.
That makes sense. I appreciate you clarifying. You’re a good person, I can tell.
I’d totally agree with nerfing time warp parrots from a player happiness perspective, if the resulting 3 turns didn’t include lethal.
But if it includes lethal, then it’s an OTK and if you’re arguing OTK shouldn’t exist…? Well that’s fine but of course your sympathetic audience is drawing from a small pool…
Again, the point I am making is very simple:
Yet I have to deal with people making these kind of comments:
So are you all agreeing that “having lethal” is the same thing as an OTK? And OTKs are the only way for games to end?
OTKs are only one way to “have lethal”. It is pretty clear I am arguing they are not a good way for games to end and also encourage boring play patterns up to that point, not that I don’t want games to end ever. My comments were not meant to be definitions of “having lethal”, they were examples that did not involve OTKs.
Since everyone seems very interested in semantics in this thread, I would define “having lethal” as:
A.) Having damage on the board that will end the game on the following turn or
B.) Having enough damage in your hand to end the game on the following turn
An OTK/infinite damage is one way to do that, but someone who does not like OTK/infinite combos does not automatically dislike games ending. That is a straw man.
The fact that you then turn around to say “30 will usually suffice” misses the point entirely, because if infinite combos were limited to 30 damage then they wouldn’t be infinite and you could interact with them through common mechanics such as armour… the infinite nature of these combos is the problem, not the fact that they are powerful in general. I have made this very clear multiple times now.
There’s a lot of other stuff here I’m going to ignore because it’s mostly based on miscommunications/bad faith arguments, although I did read that article when it was published Scrotie and agree it’s a great read that could just as easily be used to prove the point I am making… but I’m going to pass on that opportunity to argue with a troll lol.
I do think it’s worth responding to a reasonable request however:
While I will contest your “more satisfying” characterization because I’m not 100% sure what that means, I do personally have 3 homebrews that fit your definition:
An elemental jade shaman deck that usually finishes the game with a 2-3 card combo that does 8-12 damage from hand.
A highlander dragon priest deck with a few cost reduction tricks that can easily do 10-16 damage out of hand in one turn with anduin.
A midrange big Demon Hunter deck that can finish out games with a big hero attack for 10+ damage easily with a combination of cards, triggers and hero powers.
All play the board up to that point but need an ability to close games out in a hurry from hand vs relatively large HP pools if the game stalls, because that happens a lot in Wild with freeze, reanimation and OTK stuff. I also have 3 other decks right now that fit pretty neatly into control, tempo and aggro archetypes…
Anyway, again, crazy combos that end games, sure, just not on their own entirely regardless of context/boardstate/lifetotals etc. Dynamic gameplay basically…
I’m certainly not. It also depends on how loose your definition of OTK is that decides whether that is what you (not you specifically) believe. I was just clearing up some terms for everyone, your post was just the one containing the sentence so don’t take that as me calling you out or anything. I know it can seem that way with how I responded but it wasn’t my intention.
For me an OTK is 30-0 as far as Hearthstone is concerned. Or an alternate wincon combo like mechathun. So while having an OTK ready is the same as having lethal, having lethal is not the same as an OTK. Same end result though.
Just throwing in my 2 cents here, Quest mage is not a meme and most definitely is a legitimate deck. Sivara and Finley gave it a pretty significant boost in terms of consistency and redundancy. Any Combo deck slower than like turn 6-7 is an auto-loss, and only Alignment druid has an overwhelming favorable matchup. Aggro decks (Pirate rogue/Mech Mage/Mech Pally) are 60-40 at best since sometimes you have to fight through 3-4 ice blocks. Questline Hunter would probably destroy Quest mage due to flare, but that has pretty much disappeared from ladder all together.
I don’t mind OTK combo decks existing, even if they don’t contest the board. I don’t like fast combo OTK decks existing.
I would dislike it if all decks had to contest the board with minions.
Yeah, I mean this specific discussion concerns an OTK that is effectively but not technically an infinite combo, so I was sort of using the terms interchangeably… Wasn’t too worried about it because I thought my position was pretty clear, but this is the internet I guess lol.
The term OTK does basically describe the play pattern in question though:
And hey, Scrotie and Minami obviously aren’t the only ones who like that stuff, I just wish they had some of Elchar’s bravery…
So thank you for sharing an actual opinion! I obviously disagree, and that is totally ok 
I get it that not everyone wants minion based decks, it’s also worth mentioning that there are serious structural challenges here:
A.) The only permanents in the game are minions, so the only way to have anything other than an empty board for the entire game is to play minions… with the possible exception of secrets and weapons I guess, but they don’t have the same rich design space as things like planeswalkers, artifacts, enchantments etc in MTG, or even minions in Hearthstone for that matter.
B.) There is no ability to interact with your opponent during their turn, so the only way to interact with an OTK opponent is to go face when it’s your turn to do stuff… and if you are not specifically playing aggro it’s gonna feel bad for the entire duration of the game, even if you’re winning (I personally experience this all the time).
So perhaps there are some new ideas out there to provide players who don’t like minions an alternate way to win that still creates fun, dynamic play patterns and boardstates… but we’re definitely not going to get there bullying people and arguing over straw men and semantics.
For what it’s worth, I actually think naga are a step in the right direction… the hunter one that doubles a spell on a consecutive turn, for example, can lead to some pretty explosive finishes in the right deck and the tribe as a whole seems to encourage spell-centric builds while still giving good reasons to include minions and play the board a little. This is more or less what combo decks look like in MTG, with the caveat that MTG designers try to avoid infinite combos and OTKs in general, and instants/hand disruption open up a legitimate way to interact with them when they occasionally do exist in a meta.
My post has nothing to do with bravery (or the perceived cowardice of others) - the only OTK decks I’ve played have been quest priest, out of resignation, mill priest due to lack of options, and in wild curiousity killed the cat priest where you see if you can tempt your opponent into killing themselves, without damaging them yourself. The last one is for fun.
I mainly enjoy playing mid range or control decks. However OTK decks are a whole slice of the game, and I think hearthstone would be a poorer game without them.
No it’s not, you’re hateful and wrong to disagree. I mean, free speech, you’re completely welcome to say what you think, but I’m telling you that what you think is poisonous and shouldn’t be acted upon. Also, it should have been obvious that I would dislike it if all decks have to contest the board with minions, it’s not that I’m not brave it’s that I was assuming you had a clue.
Nonsense. In another thread about miniset hopes, I posted
Because I actually do want interactions with OTK decks. There’s design space for stuff like this that has been used in the past (e.g. Dirty Rat) but isn’t being used currently in Standard. I think Wild needs options that can hit spells too. But until then Rat those Parrots or go aggro and stop trying to get OTK removed from the game.
why dont they un pay2win the game
Blizzard charity group should totally hire you as head of revenue.
Well you can interact with them trough common mechanics like… slapping them in the face until they die before they get to the combo.
I know you read my posts enough to attempt to project playstyle preferences, so you must be aware that I have no problem beating the deck, and I don’t believe exclusively playing aggro decks is a solution to my percieved problem of OTK decks being way too accessible in Hearthstone and encouraging boring play patterns as a result. You also know my opinion on rat and very narrow tech solutions to these problems in general as well. These are opinions I will not stop expressing, in the same way you relentlessly try to defend these play patterns with numbers when really it is just a question of people wanting different experiences from a videogame. The sense I get is that you clearly enjoy the spreadsheet aspect of it more than the actual gameplay, and that is fine. It would be nice if you could engage in better discourse however.
Exactly.
So you agree with me then?
Ok well maybe not the second part…
The point i was trying to make about bravery is that this is an actual opinion, so thank you for your contribution to this discussion, unlike Scrotie who prefers saying things like.
Anyway, enough about trolls.
You may have missed a post of mine earlier where I describe exactly the problem with this being the only way to interact with OTK decks:
Thanks for the responses everyone!
The amplification is a over the top (imo), but he’s saying you’re not considering players who enjoy those decks.
You’re probably the first to accuse scrotie of not having an opinion 