sorcerer, incanter and rapid fire nerfs… first it was my druid, now they are my mage and my hunter decks, sad to see ignite/apm mage and odd quest hunter go
just tell me to stop playing lizzard. good thing I did not craft drek’thar at least
in the end is a good bye hearthstone
I am not familiar with those decks that you are talking about.
Could you please list those decks on using IF, that don’t use 1 and 2 mana spells, for which your alternative nerf wouldn’t have affected?
Or are you just speculating? Because if you are speculating, it seems like a ridiculous criticism since you are speculating that your specific nerf, alongside the other nerfs, would have allowed a specific deck to exist that’s currently doesn’t without any evidence of such a deck possibly being able to exist.
I think you’re a bit confused on what I was talking about with SA. I was talking about wild, and that if SA was changed to be “But not less than (1)”, it would still appear in decks (and future decks) in wild that would want to use a “2 mana reduce spells by 1” minion, but most certainly will now not play a “4 mana 3/2 reduce spells by 1” minion. Now, SA completely screams “only use me in OTK decks because I’m not viable anywhere else”
As far as IF, nerfing it to “not less than 1” but reverting it back to 2 mana would almost certainly see more use in any Mage deck, and likely find a place in Ping Mage decks.
I don’t know what you mean by
I believe you are referring to me talking about slowing down OTK decks to allow for decks like Control Warrior to exist in the meta…which MIGHT be possible now with these current nerfs. Even Kibler is saying he is using a Control Warrior at High Legend. So that deck is likely to become more prominent now assuming these nerfs deter Mozaki Mage decks from existing.
I am specific. Mage. Not Warrior, or any other class.
Which deck uses IF that wouldn’t be affected by the “not less than one” alternative nerf you are proposing?
I am in Legend in Wild. 12 of the last 13 months. I have not seen IF outside OTK decks.
Because I don’t understand how Warrior is going to use IF, and how this alternate nerf has anything to do with Warrior.
Could you elaborate and tell me what you’re talking about? Because I don’t ever remember making a claim that if IF goes to “not less than (1)” that it allows Mage decks to exist that don’t currently exist.
Then what is the point of your alternative?
What does it do? Other than allow you to attack Blizzard for not doing it.
To make sure we’re not talking past each other:
Are you specifically asking me what the purpose of nerfing Incatner’s Flow to be 2 mana reduce spells in your deck by 1 but not less than (1) would be?
Other than attacking Blizzard, yes.
Because reverting IF to 2 mana makes it playable for other Mage decks where the cost is worth the reward, and more specifically, it kills, or at the very least, greatly slows down the Mozaki Mage deck.
Killing the Mozaki Mage deck thus allows for decks in the meta that are slower to thrive (ie, Control Warrior) and allows for a healthier meta.
Do you actually think that IF at 4 mana BETTER for Hearthstone than a 2 mana IF discount by 1 but not less than (1) ??? I mean, I’d be hard pressed to believe you actually think that, or that anyone thinks that is better. They basically just killed IF. At least my version would allow it to see play.
I’m not sure. When they said “this should delay Mozaki Mage a turn or two” I thought — yeah, more likely 2. I’m not saying they didn’t kill the deck, I’m just saying I don’t think it’s obvious to me that they did; I’d have to test.
Sorcerer’s Gambit nerf should be reverted now.
It would see play in the same deck that caused it to get nerfed to 3 mana, that had the same play pattern as Mozaki.
The same deck that was nerfed a second time in UiS.
Basically we’re trading Mozaki for Questline. We took a step sideways.
So I categorically say no, it’s a bad idea to side grade IF.
It’s possible. But that 1 extra turn drawing into 1 extra card that costs 1 extra mana hurts. Especially when it’s a turn 4 do nothing rather than a turn 3 do nothing. A turn 4 do nothing is exponentially more dangerous.
I think it’s enough to kill the win rate. Forcing Mozaki to go crazy on turn 7/8 rather than 6/7 gives room for Mutanus counters as well.
You’ve got a good point here, as I hadn’t considered Quest Mage. You may very well be right.
But Quest Mage has SOME counter play now as it takes longer to get online and do its combo. With Druid Armor, Warrior armor and Priest armor values increasing, it makes one wonder if those decks could out pace the damage now. It was already very close before with Priest. Now with Xyrella, that extra 20+ armor is a major factor.
So you didn’t have any decks?
You were just speculating???
So I was right then!
You were just piling on Blizzard!
Any deck…what? I don’t know where you get this idea that I claimed non-existent mage decks would see play if IF went back to 2. Where are you getting this idea from???
I never made that claim, and I even stated a case for the change so we weren’t talking past each other.
I have no idea where you are getting this idea that I am supporting a claim that some new Mage deck would see play…?
Because you are saying it’s better for the format.
So you need to demonstrate why that is.
Other than because you can use it as an excuse to complain about Blizzard.
I did. I said it’s better for the format (standard) because it stops or severely slows down Mozaki Mage, which then allows for slower decks to exist.
I’ve already stated this. 3 times I believe.
At no point did I ever say the new IF would make some new mage deck appear. I have no idea where you got that idea from.
We’re doing exactly what I was trying to prevent by being very specific about us not talking past each other, and here we are.
Claims without evidence can be dismissed just as easy as they were brought up.
The priest nerfs we’re what made me notice how lazy they’d gotten.
Dunno, have you played the deck? These nerfs make the stall turns very clunky and mean you can’t seamlessly go cloak, cloak, scabbs turns 5-6-7.
The lack of playtesting is again evident.
Literally anyone speculating nerfs and giving thoughts on balance changes are doing all of that. There’s no other way to do it.
If you said “we should nerf X for Y reasons” you would 100% be speculating.
So from here on out, I shouldn’t expect you to give any opinion on what changes should occur, or you’ll be found to be a hypocrite, right?
I should NEVER see a post from you stating “Let’s buff X because that will…” because you’d be guilty of what we all do.