The card does rely on the other cards to cheat out the spells yes. That dependency is reflected by the stats
But what you cant see on that stat page is how often the deck wins if you play conman as an immediate follow up to a big spell turn.
I would wager that the winrate for the deck in that scenario is incredibly high. That is a much harder thing to analyze because the data doesnt account for that.
I would. (side note can we swap enemies, yours seem pretty tame based on what you said here)
Lol he called you tame HazamaâŚ
You have no idea how deep that lunacy well goesâŚ
The poor souls that toke a peak will never recover.
I know what he looks like, think about the most horrendous ,disturbing abomination multiply that by 1000x and you would still come short to what i have seen.
That set was good for rogue, shaman, and warrior at least. And decent for hunter and eventually mage.
Because the Rogue minion didnât exist at that point. Itâs honestly the combination of both that is the problem. Having a second pseudo King Tide isnât hurt the deck either.
I only seem tame because this forum heavily censors The Frog.
Weâre trying to avoid another HYPNOTOAD incident
Whenever one says âisnât the overall winrate,â itâs usually a case of warped thinking. Letâs try to find whatâs warped and unwarp it.
Ah. Here we are.
What youâre calling a âbrute force winâ is more properly known as a âwin more card.â The Classic âwin moreâ card is Bloodlust, which allows a Shaman who is already winning (multiple minions surviving to the start of their next turn) to basically seal out the game. In a similar way, Conman is more brutal when the BSM gets a big spell off early, converting a position thatâs already advantageous into a guaranteed win or something close to it.
Historically, win more cards are bad, and not really worth including. After all, they donât help the player playing them very much â going from a great position where a win is very likely, to a guaranteed win, isnât that big of a jump in winrate, a win-more cards are pretty useless in situations where the player using them is losing. So Conman is, like I was telling Reality in an earlier post, not a powerful card overall.
Hereâs what I think I can agree with you on: when win-more cards are good, itâs generally not an indicator that the card itself is a problem, but it is often an indicator that the rest of the deck is a problem. If youâve got a Shaman aggro deck thatâs actually running Bloodlust, thatâs a red flag that the deck might be too good at pumping out sticky minions at quantity. I think it does make sense to be concerned that Conman is making the cut for BSM lists, but I donât think itâs any problem with Conman himself.
In my headcanon that gif is Hazamaâs host body. We start with normal unpossessed mode, then proceed into frog possession mode complete with permanent frog-face. A second after the gif ends he sticks out his tongue and hallucinates catching a fly with it.
Conman in the context of the specific BSM that we are talking about isnât really a âWin moreâ card though. Itâs a way to continually keep asking the question and see if the opponent has the answer. All of that WITHOUT having to go through the combo to play the Tsunami again.
Itâs more like redundancy within the deck that punishes any deck that doesnât have multiple answers to the continued asked question turn after turn.
But if youâre being honest, youâre probably not coming back from a turn 4 Tsunami anyway. The win percentage for BSM from there is already pretty darn high, without extra help. Thatâs what makes it win-more.
I think you might have a point specifically regarding the mirror match, where the big spell bombs count as both threat and answer. And it is a popular deck, so itâs a popular mirror.
No im not saying its a win more card. Im saying when the specific instance of big spell into conman the next turn (20 mana cheated)
Is the issue with the deck. Its a highly polarized play over 2 turns that drastically increases the winrate.
At the top level, this 2 turn play accounts artificially increases the winrate of the deck
Without this play i bet the deck win rate is in the low to mid 40âs
When this play occurs it probably wins mid to high 60âs or above. I dont know the frequency of this specific case occuring and it is not reflected in the stats. Would be worth it if some mages could share their experience with how often and how powerful this 2 turn play has been for them
I dont like this kind of polarization and conman immediately replaying such a high value card drastically reduces the chances of winning vs the deck
The first spell being cheated out doesnt end the game, you can afford to play around that
the follow up from conman does more often than it should. Most decks dont have the resources (mana especially) to respond to back to back stat drops like that. That is why you see frustration with the card. The play pattern of repeating the decks best play 2 turns in a row is game ending most of the time it happens
the card shouldnât function the way it currently does in other classes
Itâs most likely good to have in deck for the control matches. Where they want to keep dumping onto the board and seeing if they can eventually push through. Against aggro yeah itâs a waste of time and well itâs already beating mid/tempo decks. Mirror itâs for sure worth having. It might drop off eventually as the deck becomes less played.
This is impossible given the data.
The drawn winrate data for the deck is generally negative. This is not alarming, it just means that BSM is usually more aggressive than its opponents, so the longer the game goes (more turns = more draws) the worse it performs. That said, Conmanâs drawn winrate is also negative; if BSM draws it, theyâre 0.8% less likely to win the game, which is a smaller decrease than several other cards the deck runs, but itâs still a decrease.
There is no âreasonableâ card you could replace Conman with where it would decrease the deckâs winrate more than 5%, if that card is drawn at all. So assuming about 10 cards drawn per game, 2% difference at most, each. Assuming better substitutes, 1% at most, each. If Blizzard nuked Conman from orbit, functionally deleting the card, and did nothing else, BSM would lose 2% winrate or less.
The most appropriate nerf target, hands down, is Skyla. The second most appropriate nerf target is Surfalopod. This is not even close.
I agree with you that cheating out a spell is necessary for the deck to function and that skyla can guaranteed get it to 0 as early as it does is impactful
Im saying the best possible line for the deck is cheating a big spell with skyla or something else and then following it up with conman on the next turn. This is what you want to do with the deck if you can. I think that amount of power coming off conman so early should not go unnoticed
If you dont think conman is an issue now, i think it will be later. If not with BSM, with other decks in the future for Palidan and Mage
No. I remember Witchwood.
Aaww, where is your sense of adventure?!
I went with the Beast Master skill tree. So I can tame exotic beasts. Youâre welcome.
You donât know Jak, hah! Talk about lunacyâŚ
It censors us all.
I had absolutely nothing to do with any of that. 
You sound like one of my tribe.
It was a play of words by the frog, beneath many layers of madness theres a surprising level of sapience.
Shattered to smithereens by the unholy visage of the anura.
I actually liked Witchwood. I hated the solo content and all of the solo content thereafter.
But I did like the theme and that it was a pretty chill xpac. Which, there should be a chill xpac once in a while.
Limitations are key.
Discounted spells shouldnât be discounted by more than 2.
(8 mana spells for 6, etc.)
Same with minions. Cards like Brann should have a fixed number of times.
(Doubles next ten battlecry cards played)
Or something like that. They really need reign it in like a lot.
These are just example suggestions. I am not suggesting they should implement these exact things but they should implement the concept.
Just because the dial is turning, doesnât mean itâs not already broken and spinning pointlessly.
Like Iâve been saying, the game is way past the point of no return with power creep. Zeddy said it himself. The next rotation needs to completely shake up the game in order for player agency to remain. Otherwise, like someone said in another topic, youâre just playing your green cards in whatever deck you play.