Surfalopod being good in the single, highrolly form of Tssunami Mage, does not means it is exceptionally strong in General.
If Tsunami Mage was as strong as it could get already, experimentation with the deck would be largely pointless.
Where are the nerfs, no buffs for rogue?
Im worried itâs at the bottomâŚ
Iâm surprised they went for Surfalopod. I think the deck is better without it and if everyone drops it, BSM might perform better overall than before lol.
1 Like
Nope. It was in that version of BSM.
I was always stating that the version of BSM was a dead end because of that card.
Both statements were true. If not for the orb variation growing, the Surfalopod version was going to be pushed out of the meta at top legend entirely because it couldnât adapt to the counters.
Surfalopod mage was rescued by orb mage rising. Orb mage was the stronger deck at all of the counter matchups, and still is.
So yay, you were right that Surfalopod was good in a worse version of mage!
And now I donât have to worry about that mirror variation being better than orb anymore.
1 Like
I not.
That nerf is all about popularity and what is more popular than people trying dumb highrolls?
They really donât care about the performance of what theyâre hitting here.
AlsoâŚ
Scr0tie really using blizzard balancing as parameter of what is good or not?
That is new.
With a 2 mana nerf the deck is just deleted; weâre talking about 0% levels of play with a 2 mana nerf; thereâs no way it survives even in twist doing achievements with it.
An 1 mana nerf is easy to kill it for the most part. 1 whole round for the opponent is a big swing and a lot of people only need an EXCUSE to leave an overplayed deck.
I kinda doubt it. A lot of Mage players have diamond hands. The deck could be below 40% winrate and itâd still have some hangers-on.
But I donât think that the deck even needed nerfing, at all. I knew that it would be, and I corrected guessed the how. Still got a lot of copers in here acting like Surfalopod wasnât the second best card in the deck. Not running it was (is?) objectively wrong. They act like the Surfalopod version had weaknesses and that their version fixed them. Yes, the Surfalopod version has weaknesses, itâs not a Tier S deck; but no, they didnât fix them.
Not really. Like I said, deck doesnât even need nerfing. Or even if it did, just tapping Skyla with a +1 would be more than enough.
Adding 2 mana cost to Skyla is over-nerfed and would likely kill the deck.
Warlock will rise instead I think.
Except that orb mage is performing basically equally well as the old big spell mages, while being an unfavored matchup into the old listsâŚ
Iâd say thatâs pretty much fixing the problems of it myself.
You think youâre so very clever because you made a version of rock that disguises itself as paper. I think that the disguise doesnât really matter all that much, and youâre just playing rock. Probably feels good against scissors though.
And just to clarify, actual BSM is a midrange aggro deck that uses a few multi card combos to fill the board with undercosted large threats, and the deck you like is a control deck with some tempo plays and Orb for game ending value. They fail to get a Turn 5 big spell and they scoop; you fail to get it and you donât care, because youâre not even about that life. Youâre not even close to the same archetype.
I can see where you come from and for the average hearthstone deck that is true donât get It wrong.
It is Just that sometimes people still able to troll blizzard coming with ânon intendedâ versions of their decks.
A good but Very old example was Barnes + Yâsharj combo as a different pay off to spell Hunter during itâs time.
Maestra weapon rogue is another good example of that.
Sometimes It is a different finisher, other a better shell.
I genuinely think this is the case this time.
I mean, orb mage is a clearly viable archetype. It performs better against big spell mageâs bad matchups. It does all the things I was saying it did while being a top tier deck.
Ditching surfalopod / under the sea was not incorrect. It was another strong archetype that created a more flexible deck than the surfalopod lists could ever be. Itâs less high rolly, and more consistent.
Surfalopod has strengths and weaknesses. The weaknesses donât show in its card stats because they were instead in the deck stats.
I mean⌠sure, itâs a slower game plan, but it doesnât really change that reworking the deck without surfalopod / under the sea in favor of shifts to improve the deck consistency and remove reliance on the high roll was a perfectly viable move.
Correct, but you canât actually build a surfalopod deck to do anything but that. Removing it opened up the deck to do a lot more than just pray for the high roll on 5, which is hard to argue as anything but an improvement.
I still primarily am trying to get an early tsunami, I just also have a few ways to deal with the decks that would otherwise get under/over the normal list.
So do we have corroboration? Is there an article?
No article yet, just an image showing skyla and surfalopod as the nerf targets.
1 Like
Iâm glad I passed on the deck. Knew it wasnât hanging out long, and it takes me ages to get comfortable with a new deck.
Yeah, even if this was tier 4, it was going to get nerfed with its play rate and game experience.
1 Like
I told you had 2 weeks i used my time lol.
It was still better than the slop Mage was getting.
I would kill for 2 weeks every expansion, this felt like xmas for Mage.
And Druid aka Mage 2.0 just endures until you get a deck on par with this.
Maybe in 2 expansions.
1 Like
Itâs not really praying. With 4 activators (the other 2 being Skyla and King Tide), itâs extremely consistent. Mulliganing properly with the deck is a little counterintuitive, keeping Surfs over 2s, thatâs about it.
And nuance is not in any way a requirement for power. You donât need more than one trick if your one trick is sufficiently powerful.
The core of your misunderstanding is that you think one-dimensional means weak, and it really doesnât. The Hulk might not have strategic depth, but you canât take him in a fight.