Hearthstone
- Thread starter Azrayne
- Start date
Generally in arena you want 6-8 1-2 drops, ideally. If you are losing by turn 8 it sounds like you didn't have enough early game and got out tempoed.
I had 2 shielded bots, 2 argent guy (those who give a ds) + 1 argent squire.
I also had bloodknight and a few others 3 mana
I also had bloodknight and a few others 3 mana
- 16,428
- 7,439
How much value do you place on 1 drops? I've been playing some decks where have none and seems to be ok. Seems to be a card you must get in your mulligan otherwise it's kinda ineffectual.
Sabbat
Trakanon Raider
- 1,833
- 760
That was me. I took the advice on taking them out, played more, and put one back in. The reasoning for taking it out was because it was a win more card, which I just can't agree with. Bloodlust is a finisher, or an equalizer -- it's a win NOW card. So many games have come down to long control matches that any chance you can get to finish it, you pretty much need too, or risk letting your opponent drop yet another fucking legendary to ruin your day. I've put in about 60 games of shaman and I'm not sure I can play without a least one.
So four 2 drops and one 1 drop. Borderline, if you get unlucky you can easily go 0-3 with a deck that slow. Not surprised at all. Getting the board back, especially post-GvG, is hard. If you get a slow start it is very easy to lose.
@Deathwing: Pretty highly. I'll take a Zombie Chow over a Tiger in a lot of cases (though not over a Yeti). It depends on the class and the cards I already have, so it is a hard question to answer. Also depends on the 1 drop. Worgen and Chow are probably the best neutral 1 drops, I put a lot of thought into it before I pass them up in a draft.
- 7,895
- 7,708
This is actually a statement I agree lot with and a point I disagree with the pro's on. There is a huge difference between win now and win more. Bloodlust is definitely win now, and lets you do so in scenarios where you aren't necessarily winning at all.
Arch
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 1,036
- 25
I think it's a great addition if don't have a lot of the better cards as well, I agree with the win now as well you can be winning and they can draw their win condition or get a tempo swing or whatever, seems like it happens more often now.
- 17,781
- 25,896
Absolutely. I think the 'theorists' of HS deny the inclusion of Bloodlust, but the 'experimentalists' do not.
But then again, I am like rank 15 usually. Not a top player by any means.
- 11,065
- 2,265
The best part probably about Bloodlust is people don't expect you to play it in constructed, so they might get lazy with the totem clearing even if they're ahead and with no risk, which might get you wins. It is however a completely dead card if your board is getting cleared every turn, it does literally nothing until you have board presence at the start of your turn(can bloodlust chargers but that's gonna be a single charger usually, so it's 5mana for 3dmg, aka garbage). It's not a terrible card I'd say, but generally when people want to burst down on shaman, they either go for the malygos nonsense or al'akir, both of which can do ridiculous damage directly from the hand. Obviously, those are also legendaries, so bloodlust is a good card until then. Doomhammer too.
Sebudai
Ssraeszha Raider
- 12,022
- 22,504
The whole criticism of "win more" cards is largely lazy and borderline platitude in CCGs. Calling Bloodlust a "win more" card is like one step short of calling Quartermaster a "win more" card. A card that puts your opponent in the awkward position of having to chain clear every little piece of shit you throw out there for fear of being finished off by a massive alpha strike at the drop of a hat is not a "win more" card. I mean yeah, it obviously has its downsides as a card and probably doesn't belong in a lot of shaman decks, but it is also notonlygood when you're already winning.
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 42,481
- 50,633
The big difference is that Bloodlust is really only good as a finisher or a desperation clear, whereas Quartermaster potentially leaves a lasting board presence. Shaman has better burst options in the form of Al'akir and/or Doomhammer, which synergize with the rockbiters and flametongues that you're already running as staples in your deck. You also have to seriously consider what you're cutting for that Bloodlust, since you don't really have a lot of spare room in Shaman decks. So you're either cutting a threat or a silver bullet to make room for a fairly gimmicky card.
Sabbat
Trakanon Raider
- 1,833
- 760
This is another factor I just can't quite get behind and agree with. If you've lost board control and can't get minions on the table long enough to use Bloodlust chances are high you're fucked either way. I can't think of a card (that shaman has access too), at all, bar Deathwing that could swing it back around in your favor.
If you've lost board control and can't develop a board, then every card in your hand is a dead card.
Did anyone else find the Naxx adventures really, really boring and annoying? You don't learn much that's relevant to the game because you're playing against special opponents with unique cards and mechanics, and some of the hero powers are beyond ridiculous to the point where you can't win if you don't get a very lucky draw. These encounters are supposed to be tuned for beginner decks and skill, but it felt like the solution was to just brute-force them with repeat retries until you get a sufficiently lucky draw to overcome shit like the opponent having a hero power that summons a 4/4 for 2 mana every turn throughout the whole game.
Sinzar
Trakanon Raider
- 3,149
- 269
Naxx was neat and cool because hey it was Naxx and it was something different in the game. The downside was that (at least for heroic fights) you had to build retarded decks and chain concedes until you had the perfect opening to beat a lot of them. The result was content that I won't ever have the desire to replay for fun later. They could have done better.