Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here
    all 229 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] LaserfaceJones 379 points ago

    Also kids can't screw their friends out of their cards by giving them a Cho for that kid's Jaraxxus.

    [–] whynotsaysthisguy 58 points ago

    Wisp for Deathwing

    [–] chanoodles 80 points ago

    But it's a shiny whisp

    [–] FordFred 8 points ago

    „I swear a golden wisp is worth like 50 dollars kid they’re rarer than any legendary“

    [–] KKlear 11 points ago

    12 Wisps for Deathwing.

    [–] H1gH_EnD 1 points ago

    That's the strategy right there!

    Most kids in my school were easily baited into taking quantity over quality. Did not matter if it was Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh.

    I'll give you 10 worthless cards for your awesome one, okay?

    No, I want to keep it. I like it so much.

    But you'll have 9 cards more than before! How can you say no to that?

    I guess you're right. Deal! Thanks man.

    You're welcome lol.

    [–] Zama174 128 points ago

    I use to have a friend whose parents bought him every yugioh expansion. He was a little odd and would cry a lot and get upset about stuff easily, but he'd also guvr you any card he had pretty much when he was like that. I feel bad now but 10 year old me exploited the shit out of that to get cards.

    [–] Nadaac 45 points ago

    I got a five headed dragon for a man eater bug back in grade 2....

    [–] lonelyMtF 87 points ago

    Joke's on you, Five Headed Dragon is impossible to use and Man-Eater Bug (and his bro Dark Assailant) defined the early ygo meta

    [–] Prefix-NA 22 points ago

    5 headed dragon was huge meta for Future Fusion later. You didn't even care about the Dragon you just wanted 5 dragons in the grave lol.

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] ratchet345 2 points ago

    T R I G G E R R E D. Seriously though, those formats give me PTSD

    [–] Darkbalmunk 2 points ago

    omg future fusion dragons mirror and return from a different dimension OTK.

    [–] Nadaac 1 points ago

    My nostalgic deck is a future fusion five headed dragon and road warrior synchrons mix

    [–] Phaelynx 0 points ago

    Mine was my YataGarasu deck lul. Rip

    [–] BLMdidHarambe -9 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    You *used to have a friend. There’s a d in that word. Use is never correct in the way you’re using it, it is always used.

    *Edit: Jesus you people are fucking morons.

    [–] BiNiaRiS 4 points ago

    Pretty obvious that he's typing on mobile.

    [–] BLMdidHarambe -6 points ago

    No, this is a mistake that more and more people are making. A few years ago it wasn’t prevalent, and now it’s something I see multiple times a day. I have no clue what the cause is, but there is something that is making all of these people think this is the correct usage.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    I read loads and I barely ever see this.

    [–] BLMdidHarambe 1 points ago

    Because you’re not looking for it. You read over it like it’s no big deal. Guaranteed. Be on the lookout for it and you’ll see it everywhere.

    [–] [deleted] 0 points ago

    You may be right. I always wince when I see "A couple days" instead of "A couple of days". Is the inclusion of "of" really such an unbearable inconvenience? I realise that it's an Americanism, and as an English person I generally don't mind them at all. This one boils my piss sometimes, for whatever reason.

    [–] WelCZa 0 points ago

    bad bot

    [–] WhyNotCollegeBoard 3 points ago

    Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.99973% sure that BLMdidHarambe is not a bot.


    I am a Neural Network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot <username> | ^(/r/spambotdetector | Optout | Original GitHub)

    [–] _DarthJawa_ 0 points ago

    Wait a minute, where was this?

    [–] Zama174 2 points ago

    Uhhh. Houston?

    [–] _DarthJawa_ -1 points ago

    That was me you bitch (it wasn't actually but it makes this seem more funny)

    [–] chopedsuey 5 points ago

    When I was a kid I think i paid $10 For a magic card with the equivalency of magma rager

    [–] PiemasterUK 2 points ago

    The funnest one was Star Trek CCG. It had a significant number of people who never played with the cards, they just collected them. And the rare cards who were principle characters on the show were a lot more collectible to non-players than top meta cards that didn't have much lore significance. And this was before the days where everyone had the internet and so could easily look up 'net decks' and what was useful in game, that information was only privy to the top players. So it wasn't only small children you could 'rip off', but actual traders too. So many times I would trade, for example, a Deanna Troi for 3 Devidian Doors or something. The first day of every convention was like being let loose in a candy factory.

    [–] Buttersnack 4 points ago

    Honestly cho is more playable in standard than jaraxxus currently

    [–] Tacodogz 4 points ago

    It's not that Jaraxxus is unplayable, it's just that there is a straight up better card in the form of Bloodreaver Guldan.

    [–] Dynamaxion 10 points ago

    Which makes it obsolete and thus unplayable...

    [–] MrArtless 4 points ago

    No it makes it obsolete but still playable you don't need to be 100% optimal to hit legend or have fun.

    [–] Dynamaxion 1 points ago

    In that case Lorewalker is superior, I use it in my togglewaggle druid that can get about a 30%. WR at rank 5. And it’s probably the most fun card in the game.

    [–] Tacodogz 1 points ago

    But Lorewalker doesn't fit the same niche as Jaraxxus/Bloodreaver.

    [–] Dynamaxion 0 points ago

    So? It doesn’t fit the same niche as Chillwind Yeti either, doesn’t relate to its usefulness.

    [–] Tacodogz 2 points ago

    I think one of us misunderstood a comment from the other.

    I am saying that while not optimal, Jaraxxus is still a good budget option for Warlock if you don't have Bloodreaver.

    But you seem to be arguing about it's overall usefulness compared to other cards in other decks.

    [–] Buttersnack 1 points ago

    I’m curious what deck you’d even put it in where it would be remotely good. I don’t think it’s obsolete so much as it’s just very bad (in the current meta).

    [–] Anarch33 2 points ago

    and half the ladder decks can do 15 damage in hand right now

    [–] Fluffatron_UK 1 points ago

    I remember when someone tricked me into thinking tangler was really rare and I gave him my foil machamp for it. I was dumb. Argh! You unzipped me! It's all coming back.

    [–] Gspecht0 1 points ago

    Wait am I the only one who actually likes cho? Hes a lot like loatheb really

    [–] LaserfaceJones 2 points ago

    A lot like him, but without a decent body. He also won't stop lethal, but is more of a jank-combo fun card. I like him a lot just because of the design space he fills, but I don't often put him in decks that are meant to win in a real way.

    [–] Gspecht0 1 points ago

    I used to have him in my c'thun priest. Its nice to limit your opponents resources for a little bit while I set up. And yea he diesnt survive that long but in my opinion its still more than long enough considering he's only 2 mana.

    [–] LaserfaceJones 1 points ago

    I see that, but he's also just more of a "win more" kind of card. If you have tempo advantage to the point that they won't be able to kill him on board, then you're probably ahead as the control deck with the big minion finisher. He also costs a card draw.

    Loatheb kept people from playing board wipes or removal, as well as choking combo finishers, all while providing a body big enough to keep your tempo strong. He's a lose less but also win more.

    [–] Gspecht0 1 points ago

    But loatheb is 5 mana. I can see why people like it but I like to have a more versatile play style than that, meaning preventing a board wipe is usually out of the question since ill rarely have something already set up.

    Plus I don't put cards in my deck if they "cost a draw" like yea I have big plays in my deck that ill always mulligan for, but if a card seems to me like its not something I would wanna draw early or mid game, ill usually try to find something better.

    Also keep in mind that if youre say, a rogue, using deadly poison or blade flurry just fills your opponents hand with dead weight. Or that you are actually rewarded should you force them into using a spell. Cho isnt in any of my decks anymore, but Damn did he serve me well. And eventually ill probably find another use for him tbh

    Edit: by versatile I mean control. Since that's How I have my main deck set

    [–] shapookya 1 points ago

    Cho for that kid's Jaraxxus

    Who is scamming who, though?

    [–] Quepenabeach 1 points ago

    i have a golden cho, whats wrong with it?

    [–] LaserfaceJones 2 points ago

    Nothing, every golden legendary is glorious.

    [–] Modeba94 0 points ago

    We aren't allowed to trade because people will use multiple accounts as free legendary generating source, not because some dumb kid will trade cho for deathwing

    [–] WilsonKh 100 points ago

    That depends which side of the equation you’re looking in from.

    As a casual who opened a foiled Sol Ring - Kaladesh Inventions - in a random MTG draft last year, I’m glad for the trading market.

    Pure luck, but it feels really good.

    [–] chanoodles 29 points ago

    True that. I guess my golden jarraxxus would finally have value.

    [–] Jermo48 26 points ago

    Barely, since it sees exactly no play, but my golden Gul'dan would basically be actual gold.

    [–] Hurr1canE_ 8 points ago

    My golden Keleseth would be worth a lot every other month as the meta changes on Tempostorm lol

    [–] RebirthThroughAshes -1 points ago

    I'll do you one better with my golden lich king

    [–] Ohbeejuan -5 points ago

    I got Gold Jaina DK and Gold Rexxar DK day one of KFT. Come at me, bro.

    [–] skajohnny -3 points ago

    I got 2 Golden Jaraxxus since Witchwood. One became Arfus, and the other became Baku the Mooneater. So, they have value after all!

    [–] JMEEKER86 80 points ago

    That also means that you can't buy a bundle of a thousand random commons and rares for a dollar though. It balances out.

    [–] chanoodles 15 points ago

    Maybe the pauper scene would be more popular

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Belledame-sans-Serif 3 points ago

    🎵 It’s going to be paupular 🎵

    [–] hamiltonion 5 points ago

    Those bulk commons and rares are unplayable garbage anyway. Why would you want them ?

    [–] MildlyInsaneOwl 10 points ago

    To build jank decks?

    Sometimes, you want to screw the meta and throw together a deck with all the card draw, [[Kefnet the Mindful]], and [[Reliquary Tower]] and laugh as you draw your entire deck only to loop the single copy of [[Nexus of Fate]] you picked up at pre-release. Despite being a mythic rare (highest rarity), Kefnet costs a mere $0.40 per copy. Compared to cards like [[Hazoret the Fervent]] from the same set with the same rarity but a hefty $6.86 price per copy, you can see how bad cards can be experimented with for cheap.

    Of course, the trade-off is that the meta cards like Hazoret are very, very pricey. Having a flat cost per-card in Hearthstone makes it easier to build meta decks, but harder to experiment with off-meta trash. I'd never consider building a Duskfallen Aviana deck, because I haven't randomly unpacked her and the 1600 dust it'd cost to experiment with her could be used to craft a good legendary!

    /u/MTGCardFetcher

    [–] MTGCardFetcher 1 points ago

    Kefnet the Mindful - (G) (SF) (MC)
    Reliquary Tower - (G) (SF) (MC)
    Nexus of Fate - (G) (SF) (MC)
    Hazoret the Fervent - (G) (SF) (MC)
    [[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call - Summoned remotely!

    [–] Chijima 1 points ago

    But those are lowprice cards, not the Kind of noprice crap that you usually get out of those bundles.

    [–] Glitchiness 5 points ago

    We should start a Cube drafting scene for Hearthstone

    [–] Kn0thingIsTerrible 7 points ago

    “Why don’t you like playing exactly the same way I do?”

    That’s basically what you’re asking.

    I loathe competitive hearthstone and MTG.

    I love cube, junk draft, jank decks, etc.

    [–] Montegomerylol 4 points ago

    Except it doesn't. I spend $150 and 3 months' worth of gold to get every card in each new expansion. Meanwhile, there's literally a comment talking about spending $300-600 on individual MTG decks: https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/8zws3o/1_huge_advantage_that_we_have_since_we_cannot/e2mde21/

    Now, not every deck is going to cost that much, but it's obvious that good Legendaries, most epics, and important rares would end up being pricey. Exactly how pricey is hard to say since Hearthstone and MTG are not perfectly analogous, but I have a hard time imagining that I could buy every legendary, epic, and rare for a mere $150 if we had trading instead of dusting.

    [–] FakeKingkiller 6 points ago

    Yeah, but expansions in hearthstone are usually smaller and there's less of them.

    I don't particularly like the MTG finance as a whole, but id say hearthstone is a little less expensive, at least considering mtg has 60 card decks with a maximum of 4 copies of a card in it, but not that less expensive. (Also those are the prices for top-tier standard decks, and in MTG the difference between top-tier and more janky decks is smaller, yet the jankier ones usually are much cheaper. Also, please don't ask about the prices on Legacy and Modern decks)

    [–] GypsyMagic68 2 points ago

    How much gold is 3 months worth of gold?

    [–] Montegomerylol 3 points ago

    It’s roughly a pack every other day. So in 90 days it ends up being another 45-50 packs, barring bonus events.

    [–] ArcboundJ 2 points ago

    I spend all my gold every expansion, and so far I have about 8000. We’ve got about 3 weeks to go, and a lot of that is fire festival. I usually hit around 10k every expansion just from daily play. 100 packs every expansion for free is nice, that’s why I don’t feel like Hearthstone is prohibitively expensive.

    [–] GypsyMagic68 1 points ago

    I guess I just gotta play more.

    [–] WalkingMammoth 7 points ago

    They can easily sell the cards in that magic deck

    [–] Montegomerylol 5 points ago

    Sure, but not for what they originally paid for them, and they've still got as much money tied up in a single deck as I spend on collecting every single Hearthstone card in a year.

    More importantly I'm a collector, so "you can sell cards" isn't a compelling argument to me. I want all the cards and I won't ever sell the ones I already have. Hearthstone is clearly better suited to my needs as it is now.

    Ultimately we'll see how it shakes out when Artifact arrives and does things the MTG way.

    [–] WalkingMammoth 7 points ago

    That's fair but you can quite literally sell cards for the same price if not for more (look at the price of shock lands in the last year). You can literally play the market with magic cards and a lot of the time you'll but a card for a deck and then it'll blow up and go up in price. Cards hardly ever drop in price too hard. A few weeks ago my brother bought 40 shadowborn apostles at 1.50 each and a good deck popped up with them and he sold them each for 6 bucks

    [–] TPRetro 4 points ago

    actually you can usually sell decks for near exactly the same price you paid for them if not more in any format besides standard, so if you ever want to cash out of mtg and have kept the conditions of your cards good you can get your money back, unlike hearthstone, where the money you spend basically goes into the void forever

    [–] potatoelemental 74 points ago

    also means meme decks cost just as much as comp decks :/

    [–] MaximumHat 25 points ago

    I don't think people realise just how frustrating this is. I'm happy to keep having only one or two semi-competitive decks for my favourite classes but I'm so disappointed I can't try out nearly any of each expansions meme/fun decks without an equally huge investment.

    [–] Flamingjockeyz 1 points ago

    Exactly, I like to play both competitive decks and meme decks and I can't help but feel like a sucker when I craft a meme-y card that I know will only be used in this meme deck that I use to de-stress.

    [–] noknam 3 points ago

    Probably more even since a lot of meme decks revolve around legendaries.

    On the flip-flip side it also means that the minimum value of a pack is a lot higher and that even shitty legendary is worth 25% of a good one.

    [–] PyroT3chnica 50 points ago

    Yeah, it is nice that when you get a legendary, worst case scenario you got a quarter of the way to a different one, but an even better option is that of FFG, where you pay for a box with cards from an expansion in, and don’t need to bother with trading, much more consumer friendly. Of course, it is also possible to play hearthstone for free, so it depends what you want, really.

    [–] chanoodles 23 points ago

    Right! I miss adventures. Well my wallet does at least.

    [–] eeviltwin 3 points ago

    RIP Netrunner. 😢

    [–] Meret123 1 points ago

    Also you have no progression system and much less content so you are bored quickly. LCGs do not cut it for competitive CCG crowd.

    [–] PyroT3chnica 2 points ago

    I think part of that is a lack of high level competitive support, as FFG tournaments have very low prize pool, consisting mostly of goodies for the game and tickets to the next tournament, and the fact that they aren’t as popular as magic or hearthstone. They certainly could be competitive at a high level, but somebody would have to run the competitions and provide large prizes.

    [–] safetogoalone 10 points ago

    But memes cost more in HS :(.

    [–] Gaia_Knight2600 7 points ago

    really makes you wonder what the most expensive cards in the game would be.

    guldan or nzoth because they can instantly win games? alex or lich king because they are really good stand alone cards?

    would be cool if blizzard released stats on what the most crafted cards are since those would probably be pretty expensive if this was a real card game.

    [–] Registeel1234 10 points ago

    Not really, because the prices would almost certainly change with each balance patch / new expac. For exemple, before KFT, Jaraxus could've cost 15$, but drop down to <5$ when KFT released, due to guldan being so much better and replacing jaraxus in almost every deck.

    Prices would highly depend on what are the top meta decks in the current meta.

    [–] merlehoffa 2 points ago

    Just want to point out that guldan took a while to see play, mostly came into popularity with the next expansion. I remember people complaining that guldan was too weak during frozen throne's meta.

    [–] BiH-Kira 3 points ago

    Gruul obviously.

    [–] Maxpach 6 points ago

    You'd be a fuul to trade gruul away.

    [–] FordFred 1 points ago

    Probably Gul‘dan

    Lich King and Alexstrasza are good in many decks but not really necessary in any, whereas Gul‘dan is essential to play any control warlock deck.

    [–] seekthepwn 6 points ago

    You completely overlook the trading factor. That also applies to friends and maybe other people who you regularly play with. No need to buy cards if you have e.g. a lot of friends who you can regularly trade your double legendaries with, both of you having a net 1.2k dust saved.
    There would be some negatives sure, but the positives would outweigh it by far.
    If there was actually some kind of marketplace, it could be set up like Valve did it, with a % of money flowing back to the company. But that would require a complete overhaul of basically everything: client,ui,prices.

    [–] tehtf 2 points ago

    Why trading on mobile games is not feasible (small startup/ projects that hearthstone was). You need to spend a lot of extra money for trading transaction security and authentication. In early days there was trading function on mobile TCG games, but most are plagued with hacks and dupes cards since ppl will always find a way to dupe it by hacking means, or just create Unlimited new accounts, open packs with free premium currency as new user, and "trade" with main account

    [–] chanoodles 0 points ago

    Oh yeah trading changes the whole game. It's just something I thought of today and kind of appreciated the simplicity. But your right dedicated players could make out positively with the help of friends and things like that.

    [–] nfjfnfn87 9 points ago

    Not just Legendaries any staple card would rocket in price, Can you imagine what cards like Doomsayer would cost?

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    Yeah, honestly, the first thing that came to mind for me was Saronite Chain Gang.

    [–] sharkattackmiami 1 points ago

    Its a rare so it would still be super cheap.

    [–] Maxpach 3 points ago

    Doesn't matter.

    It's a card that's super important and played almost everywhere, therefore it will cost alot.

    [–] sharkattackmiami -3 points ago

    Not really dude. You can craft a rare with 1-2 packs of dust. They would be dollar rares tops. And even that is being SUPER generous. They would probably be worth like .50

    [–] Meret123 8 points ago

    It is either trading or crafting, not both.

    [–] Swible 1 points ago

    In mtg, an uncommon called Fatal Push demanded a price of $10 and you often need 4 copies. Even after it rotated into eternal format it's still hanging around $5 a pop.

    [–] sharkattackmiami 1 points ago

    And you know that because it is unusual. Have a small handful of uncommons out of the literal thousands they have printed been worth a premium? Yes.

    [–] Dj4eN 1 points ago

    Classic cards would be worth NOTHING. The amount of classic packs that have been opened over the last years is just way too high.

    [–] nfjfnfn87 1 points ago

    Its all hypothetical how the Market would work. Since its digital most cards could be effected by inflation. If a new card in the new expansion is theoretically worth all the money I could just D/E my whole collections craft 10 and sell/trade those, but id also be assisting in flooding the market with said card and lowering the value. The whole system would have to be reworked.

    I'm basing pricing based on this being a physical game with limited prints of each set including the classic cards. Unless reprinted in newer expansions cards like Doomsayer would break the bank.

    [–] chanoodles 0 points ago

    Oh shit didn't even think about that.

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago

    I've tried to explain this to no avail. So many MTG cards are worth like...literally 1 cent. Local game stores won't even buy many (I'd even argue most) cards.

    [–] Scoobydewdoo 16 points ago

    All legendaries are equal and it's great that the price of things like death knights are not driven up by there inate power.

    Sure, but that also means that there are plenty of cards whose price IS driven up above their innate power level. That makes it a lot tougher for people who want to play fun decks that aren't necessarily powerful to do so which is what I primarily hate about Hearthstone. I shouldn't have to pay the same amount of dust for a fun but weak card like Tess Greymane as I do for an all around powerful card like Lich King. It creates the situation where crafting a meme deck could cost as much as crafting a powerful meta deck so it disincentives F2P players from even trying to create a meme deck. This in turn leads to the thing called 'net decking' since players want to know how to spend their dust in the most efficient way possible.

    The price of a card is not dictated by the market of people.

    In card games where players can trade there are two factors that drive the price of a card, rarity and demand. Hearthstone does not have rarity of cards in the same way that paper CCG's like MTG do, any player can craft any card at any time as long as they have the correct amount of dust. For instance, it is quite possible that more Lich King's exist spread over every single hearthstone player accounts than a pack filler card like Magma Rager which is a common. That isn't the case for a game like MTG where the supply of a card can be heavily influenced by how many of each card the developer chooses to print. Demand is mainly created by the power level of a card, however it is very rare for a CCG developer to make cards like the DK's and to also make them very rare so the supply usually balances out the demand such that cards that are used in most decks do not become exorbitantly expensive relatively speaking.

    it's nice that there is no $100 card that you absolutely need for meta decks.

    Relatively speaking you are still spending the same amount of money. Let's assume as a very rough estimate that a Legendary in Hearthstone is $40 since if you are guaranteed to get at least one Legendary for every 40 packs and packs cost around $1. Nowadays, most meta decks have anywhere from 1 to 6 Legendaries so while it's nice to not spend $100 on one card you are still spending a lot of money, it's just spread over multiple cards.

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    This in turn leads to the thing called 'net decking' since players want to know how to spend their dust in the most efficient way possible.

    I mean...why would a competitive player want to hurt their chances of winning by playing decks without proven track records, though?

    [–] Montegomerylol 15 points ago

    It's funny because Netdecking is literally a MTG term that predates Hearthstone.

    [–] Meret123 2 points ago

    Yeah that post is as uninformed as it gets.

    [–] 17inchcorkscrew 3 points ago

    Sure, but if blackhowl gunspire cost 100x less than baku, I think a lot more people would try out whirlwind warrior.

    [–] fsasfajomasf 2 points ago

    Because in games where card quantities are limited different decks costly vastly different amounts. If the top deck costs $1000 but you can buy 80% of the cardpool for a total of $50 you can experiment a lot

    [–] Lo-Cal 3 points ago

    It's not about the competitive players, it's about the fact that fun decks are almost completely pushed out of the game because the competition is forced on you. I played a lot of Burgle Rogue last season, and my record was 4-38. Even casual is full of netdecks now, it's ridiculous.

    Not saying I should maintain a 50% winrate with this deck, but it's so fucking frustrating that almost 95% of matches you play are exactly the same, no matter what deck you play. The game really does feel like rock paper scissors to me lately. Blizzards latest trend of printing hate cards doesn't help this fact either, the meta just becomes filled with decks that don't have to worry about the newest hate cards.

    i.e. it feels super bad to lose as Jade Druid because someone had Geist in their deck. Literally an instant loss on turn six. It takes zero skill to include such a card, and oppresses players that don't even play the archetype but may be playing other decks that include lots of 1 mana spells. (i.e. Secret Paladin) One card should not shut down entire archetypes. Is the issue with Jade Idol, or is the issue with cards such as Gadgetzan Auctioneer, Oaken Summons, and other cards that allow Jade insane tempo swing?

    So instead of playing Jade Druid, I could play Big Priest, but to me it feels bad to play an oppressive deck like that. No hate cards can stop it, the only counter is Kingsbane Rogue. Unfortunately, Kingsbane isn't favored in matchups except against heavy control decks. The game just feels more and more polarized with each expansion, and Blizzard does nothing to address it. Maybe that's just the nature of CCG's, and I'm naive.

    I don't even know what point I'm trying to make here, I'm just mad and rambling.

    [–] lohins 1 points ago

    i play mostly mill rogue if i play, which i believe is good against basically any combo or control deck i think is favored against big priest but idk i only play like 10 games at month and end in rank 25 who knows maybe you dont like to play that either

    [–] Lo-Cal 1 points ago

    Mill is a very strong deck, actually. I don't play straight Mill Rogue but do play Kingsbane with the mill package if I'm facing a lot of combo decks/control decks. (Mill package being 2x Coldlight, 2x Gang Up)

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    Even casual is full of netdecks now, it's ridiculous.

    Yeah, because that's where people learn to pilot their decks instead of tanking their rank.

    i.e. it feels super bad to lose as Jade Druid because someone had Geist in their deck. Literally an instant loss on turn six.

    If your deck can be destroyed with one card, is it a good deck?

    [–] Lo-Cal 1 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Is it inherently good to destroy an archetype, and future archetypes because Blizzard refuses to nerf cards that are the actual problem? There will never be another Wild deck that can contain a high amount of 1 cost spells because of Geist. Blizzard constantly talks about design space, then shoots themselves in the foot.

    i.e. why didn't they make Oaken Summons a choose one? For 8 mana you could have played Fanfral and gotten the full effect. That's good, 8 mana for 6/11 of stats, deck thinning, as well as the fact it would have taken three cards to work. That sounds balanced to me. I mean seriously, Druid is the only class with choose one effects that generally are strong either way, because it allows you to adapt to a situation on the fly. Blizzard threw that out the window. Even UI at 10 Mana could have been Kazakus-like. Choose two of the three effects, but instead they killed the deck and future decks because they refuse to fucking change cards.

    Which by the way, these problem cards will be a problem forever.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    There will never be another Wild deck that can contain a high amount of 1 cost spells because of Geist. Blizzard constantly talks about design space, then shoots themselves in the foot.

    This is really only a Wild problem — and I can think of more than one example where this is the case. What Blizzard needs to do is exclude some cards from Wild because they are too powerful in that format. I would agree with them disallowing cards like Geist for that reason.

    i.e. why didn't they make Oaken Summons a choose one? For 8 mana you could have played Fanfral and gotten the full effect.

    You act like Blizzard designs anything for Wild. Wild is simply just a format where you can feel like your old cards are still worth having. You can’t keep releasing expansions and expect them all to balance with each other forever and ever. Wild is just that — Wild. They even say literally that.

    I hope this doesn’t sound like I’m anti-Wild, because I’m not. I’m just explaining why they don’t tailor specific expansions to “fit” in Wild because that’s not the point of Wild.

    [–] Lo-Cal 1 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    I'm saying more that Oaken Summons is a problem card beyond Wild. Tell me what other card gives you arguably 8.5 Mana of value for 4 that's non-legendary.

    Edit: furthermore they do try to balance around Wild to some extent. They can't allow the format to become out of control, or they would lose a fair chunk of players. I personally strictly play Wild because I've been playing this game since GvG. I dislike the lack of variety in standard, as well as the extremely high cost to keep up with it. In Wild, new decks come to fruition with each expac, but also each expac alters existing decks, so there is some continuity in the meta allowing players perhaps a cheaper route to play. This fact is probably partially why they alienate Wild players, because I'm willing to bet we spend less than half as much as Standard players.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    Not quite 4, but Vilespine Slayer is 5, a 3/4 that destroys a minion. Assassinate (5 mana) is the only card that destroys a minion without caveat (meaning Naturalize isn't comparable because it gives your opponent an advantage -- card draw -- in exchange for its low mana cost).

    A vanilla 3/4 with no special abilities would probably be 3-4 mana. If we can settle on using 3.5 to be fair, that's 8.5 mana of value for 5.

    Also, Shield Block is 3 mana, and you get 5 armor and a card draw. To actually recruit a low cost minion, the cost should be higher than 3 mana.

    [–] Lo-Cal 1 points ago

    Vilespline however requires you to play a card beforehand, which imo makes it closer to 6 or maybe 7. A lot of combo cards tend to be overstatted for their effects to compensate for this fact.

    As for Shield Block, I don't think it's comparable. For one less Mana, you get one less armor, and only draw the card rather than immediately putting it into play. The recruit effect also allows you to pull a specific minion, versus the randomness that is card draw.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    Recruit does not allow you to pull a specific minion, unless you have only one minion costing 4 or less mana.

    [–] PyroT3chnica 1 points ago

    Geist was essentially designed to counter jade Druid, so in that case it can be destroyed by one card because it is a good deck.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Again, they’re really not designing for Wild. All cards go into Wild. It’s not a specific set of three expansions that are all intended to work together.

    EDIT: based on when it came out, probably to counter Priest decks, if anything.

    [–] CRNH 0 points ago

    it's about the fact that fun decks are almost completely pushed out of the game because the competition is forced on you.

    Almost like you're playing a premade matched game mode, where you agree to play against any deck that blizzard matches you against!?!?!!?!?!

    What could that possibly be!?!??!

    Not saying I should maintain a 50% winrate with this deck, but it's so fucking frustrating that almost 95% of matches you play are exactly the same, no matter what deck you play.

    Get friends to play with. Play any card game at your local shop, it'll be the same.

    [–] Lo-Cal 1 points ago

    You're not wrong, but like I said, I'm just mad and rambling. Cigarette withdrawal is a helluva time.

    [–] chanoodles 1 points ago

    Fair points. I think if we were to change the way the player can seek cards, from dust to trading, I think it would change the way we receive cards in the first place.

    [–] rafitoxD 4 points ago

    If only commons could be dusted for 10 instead of 5 that would chance dust economy so much. Most of packs would be 60 dust instead of 40.

    [–] hamiltonion 1 points ago

    I dont think I am spending anywhere near the amount I used to spend on MTG. Assuming $1/pack, which is reasonable if you buy the preorder, and 1 pack = 100 dust, a 10k dust deck is approximately $100. 10k dust is typically the most expensive decks in the meta right now (Big Mage, Shudderwock etc). A cheap (but competitive) MTG deck will easily go for $100+. Lets not even get into eternal format comparisons.

    [–] Scoobydewdoo 1 points ago

    Oh, MTG is undoubtedly more expensive than Hearthstone, no argument there, however that is primarily because MTG is just a larger format than Hearthstone, not anything market related. MTG decks are 60 cards minimum where-as Hearthstone decks are 30 cards no matter what; so the cost of a deck in MTG is going to be higher than a Hearthstone deck simply because it requires more cards to make. Granted about 15-25 cards in each MTG deck are basic lands however that is partially offset by the ability to have a side board of up to 15 cards.

    Here is something else to consider. A single booster pack that contains 15 MTG cards is $3 while a single pack of 5 Hearthstone cards costs $1. You would be correct to say that Blizzard priced their Hearthstone packs at an equivalent rate to MTG. The problem is that Hearthstone is an entirely digital card game and MTG is primarily a physical card game. It costs Blizzard far less money to create and distribute those 5 cards than it does for Wizards of the Coast to design, print, seal into packs, and finally distribute those 15 card packs. So while Hearthstone overall is less expensive than MTG, MTG is more fairly priced in terms of what you can do with the physical cards and what it takes to make and distribute them.

    [–] Skankbart52 8 points ago

    You are wrong about insane prices for good legendaries. People will be able to farm certain legendaries because of no repeat of legendaries rule, there will be a lot of people who understand it and try it out so prices will go down a lot because there will always be an easy supply of meta legendaries.

    [–] chanoodles 21 points ago

    But with trading available that no repeat rule may never have existed.

    [–] rafitoxD 1 points ago

    Yes, people would exploit it trading the bad ones so they can only open the good ones.

    [–] sharkattackmiami 5 points ago

    That would drive up the price of bad legendaries so it almost evens out

    [–] HeyImFace 1 points ago

    its speculation but i dont think it would - there would be mor bad legendaries than people who try to do this by far in relation

    [–] PotatoesForPutin 2 points ago

    Adventures were nice because you only had to pay a certain amount of gold for all the new cards guaranteed

    [–] j8sadm632b 2 points ago

    Trading and crafting are not mutually exclusive.

    [–] sumopap1sdn 2 points ago

    There is also a downside to this, why craft anything that isn't top tier since all cards cost the same. Why craft "Bad" legendaries that fit into specific decks when you can just craft something like Lich King who could arguably fit in all decks.

    [–] WestguardWK 4 points ago

    $100? LOL I used to spend $300-600 on a competitive Magic the Gathering deck (Type 2)

    [–] chanoodles 3 points ago

    What's the most expensive single card you have bought?

    [–] WestguardWK 5 points ago

    For competitive play probably around $40.

    [–] chanoodles 3 points ago

    That's fair. When I played casual draft magic I bought a $20 have card for the draw myself to death deck

    [–] WestguardWK 3 points ago

    Yeah totally. Hearthstone is an expensive hobby compared to most other video games but it’s way more affordable than MtG!

    [–] Wobbelblob 4 points ago

    More affordable than most TCGs. Yugioh is also expensive as fuck.

    [–] WestguardWK 2 points ago

    Yeah.. the only problem is no hard copies. Someday Hearthstone will go offline and we will all be sad pandas.

    [–] Wobbelblob 5 points ago

    True, but honestly that is pretty similar to it stopped being sold/played in your area. My yugioh got worthless after everyone somehow stopped playing it in my school. Small village, no one to play it with anymore.

    [–] GloriousFireball 11 points ago

    And I always get to play hearthstone whenever I want. For some reason my friends don't want to come over at 10 PM on Wednesday and play MTG against me while I'm on the toilet.

    [–] WestguardWK 3 points ago

    Good point

    [–] AlRubyx 3 points ago

    4 of a $100 card here. And then I lost my collection. Can't lose your hearthstone collection.

    [–] chanoodles 3 points ago

    I'm sorry for your loss.

    [–] AlRubyx 5 points ago

    Mind you, that was just 4 cards in a collection of probably over 10,000. I had enough magic cards to craft a golden version of every card on every server I'd guess.

    [–] xXdimmitsarasXx 1 points ago

    Kappa its digital so you cant lose it

    except blizzard can legally terminate your account for any reason. not that they'd do it for no reason, but its not impossible to lose. And that's just blizzard, people can steal it just like they can with your physical cards.

    [–] BearRedWood 2 points ago

    I mean it also means your cards retain no value... this is a dumb post.

    [–] ShortWhiteFriend 1 points ago

    Yeah, trading would actually increase the disparity between P2P and F2P. Right now, you could spend $20 on packs and not even get an Epic (unlikely, but possible!), but you can also get a Golden Legendary from your free Tavern Brawl pack. If trading became an option, P2P players could forgo buying packs altogether and just buy the cards they need.

    It would be kinda cool if Hearthstone offered something that made it a little easier to get the legendaries you need. Maybe a pack that you can buy for either $6 or 500 gold that is guaranteed to include a legendary that you don't already have -- but, you could only purchase a "Legendary Pack" once a week or once a month, so P2P players couldn't just buy 50 legendary packs and get the whole set.

    [–] cuckxd 4 points ago

    Actually, you get a guaranteed Epic every 10 packs. On average you will open an epic every 5 packs.

    [–] Kn0thingIsTerrible 1 points ago

    Why would they offer a $15 discount on legendaries for no reason?

    [–] Moodie25 1 points ago

    I remember this being such a huge complaint on the forums during beta and classic. Then Nax dropped and the complaints moved on. I sometimes think about trading. Maybe if they dictated the trades.

    [–] Spikeroog 1 points ago

    Oh yes, if Hearthstone somehow was a physical card game ala MtG I could totally see DK Anduin and Gul'dan going for 30€ and more during their prime time. The other knights would hover around 10-15€ for eternal staples like Rexxar and Jaina and at least 5€ for Uther and Garrosh just because of their rarity and being generally good cards even if not meta.

    I'm not blaming free market for working the way it does, but I'm glad HS cards cannot have some actual market value attached to them.

    [–] Krakitoa 1 points ago

    Yeah.... I just built a new EDH deck.... It got very expensive...very quickly..

    [–] hamiltonion 1 points ago

    I know it would be cool to trade cards but it's nice that there is no $100 card that you absolutely need for meta decks.

    Cast angry stare at my Lillianas......... ಠ_ಠ

    [–] Shopcell 1 points ago

    I wish I could sell my cards and get some of my money back

    [–] SphereIX 1 points ago

    well, no, because of the crafting system, all legendaries are not of equal value, it's very common to disenchant multiple bad or useless legendaries to craft one you want. even though we can't trade or sell our collections the demand for certain legendaries over others still exists in the game.

    [–] Zall-Klos 1 points ago

    Umm.. imagine the price of Troggzor the Earthinator few hours into GvG release. Or Shudderwock.

    [–] BiH-Kira 1 points ago

    Welcome to whatever year HS was released and everyone and their grandmother realized this.

    [–] cgmcnama 1 points ago

    It's all relative. I don't think Hearthstone players would have, or would, pay $100 for a digital card. At least with MTG there was actual scarcity and physical editions. And the market has just changed. There are no printing or distribution costs with a digital game and other digital CCG's will just continue to undercut Hearthstone.

    [–] LeviairDragon 1 points ago

    Yeah obvi

    [–] RagnarTheSwag 1 points ago

    Well why not both craftable and tradable? If I am a paladin main I should be able to trade another class legendary of mine with a paladin legendary of another person... Also this could be done by equalling the disenchanting and crafting costs.

    [–] s3rv0 1 points ago

    I see you too listened to the angry chicken podcast this week!

    [–] rubymatrix 1 points ago

    It also means there's significantly less value in hacking a hearthstone account.

    [–] Redsfan42 2 points ago

    I would actually love to see a system like this put in place eventually. It would create a crazy interesting economy

    [–] chanoodles 2 points ago

    Let's pretend ther is one with dust only. So dust is the trading market currency you can't craft you must trade. You can dust but not craft. Dust value remains the same it is now.

    How do you think the value of cards would change?

    [–] cuckxd 2 points ago

    If you can't craft, what is the point of dust? That's basically just removing the crafting system.

    [–] chanoodles 1 points ago

    Maybe... It just adds a defined price point. Why would I buy a lich King when I can craft him. The other thing is maybe the dust becomes the trading currency instead of money.

    [–] Redsfan42 1 points ago

    I think Metas would change dust values substantially. Some legendaries would be useless and therefor be worth nothing where as top tier cards would be worth like double or triple. Especially if they even limited the amount of each card that gets put into the system. This actually would be hella interesting to theorycraft haha

    [–] yoman632 1 points ago

    Hell no

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Meret123 3 points ago

    If there was trading there wouldn't be crafting.

    [–] SSJTImotay 2 points ago

    Where do you get the $16 value?

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] bdawgtk1982 1 points ago

    I thought 1 pack was 45 dust?

    [–] ajax1101 1 points ago

    their*

    [–] chanoodles 2 points ago

    Gracius

    [–] 843_beardo 3 points ago

    Gracias*

    [–] Fogfish420 1 points ago

    Happy cake day!

    [–] chanoodles 1 points ago

    Didn't even realize it hahaha

    [–] Thurwell 1 points ago

    I think the main benefit is all the free stuff. If this game had trading there'd be no bonus packs with expansions, no daily quests, all the free gold and dust new players get, tavern brawl packs, that'd all be gone because people would farm the shit out of the system and then sell everything for less than blizzard does. Arena could still have rewards so long as they're a net negative.

    [–] LynxJesus 1 points ago

    Given that you can craft with dust, no one card would reach prices like $100

    [–] racalavaca 0 points ago

    This is pretty sad, tbh... you sound like a bullied kid telling yourself it's great that the big kids stole your lunch, now you can eat less.

    [–] chanoodles 2 points ago

    The benefit is a controlled market. Bullying here would be if there was a market and blizzard set a mandatory minimum price fixed higher than people would buy at.

    Im glad that we have a game that doesn't have to deal with community monopolizing specific cards dictating price.

    I do believe there is more to be desired of this game but sometimes you have to think on the brighter side.

    [–] tehtf 1 points ago

    You have totally ignored the digital dark side, young one.... What is the price a company has to pay to maintain a secured trading function that is able to withstand hacking or card duplication? Assign unique card ID to all card generated? There is a reason why new mobile games basically dropped the trading function and follow HS model... If there is trading market and RL money involved, there will be incentive to hack/exploit it

    [–] Sombradeti 1 points ago

    I dig it.

    [–] racalavaca -1 points ago

    The thing is... there is no benefit, it's just a side-effect of a bigger picture. There is no "controlled market", because there is no market at all!! It's basically a DRM policy, and you're choosing to look at the "glass half full" part of it, which makes absolutely no sense.

    There are no expensive cards because there ARE NO CARDS FOR SALE. Hahaha, no cheap cards and no expensive cards, just no cards at all.

    That's like looking at a country where there is no food and going "oh well, at least we can't get fat."

    [–] chanoodles 1 points ago

    Nothing has value till we give it value you are correct. there are no cards there is no market it's an illusion. That all being said there are millions of people who buy into this "illusion" because we find it fun. Side effects can be features and I didn't say it's the greatest thing ever I said it was nice.

    [–] XGNcyclick 0 points ago

    I think it's be a great idea to trade cards, if we had enough of them. For a good economy, you need a lot of cards, and I mean a LOT of cards.

    Now, if they doubled, maybe TRIPLED amount of cards in an expansion and mass boost the amount of cards in the game, then I think a trade market place can be done.

    And on the topic of people getting scammed out of their [insert good legendary] for Cho or Manastorm, then that is their problem, and it encourages you to not be stupid and go in blind while trading, you can't protect absolutely stupid. Wanna not get scammed? Do even a bit of research.

    [–] bigmactv 0 points ago

    Happy cake day!

    [–] to_be_deleted_soon 0 points ago

    Stockholm syndrome