I think chat is confused. Adding more cards to the pool of possible cards in a random mechanic generally makes it worse, even if the cards added are slightly better, since unless the point of those cards is to play generally good cards, you want the specific options it generates. And the excavate options have wildly different uses and thus diluting the pool makes it generally worse.
Excavate is mostly about generally good options though, trying to get one specific one is just desperate last chances. In general I can’t see this not making excavate better.
We experienced this in reverse when Locusts was cut from the discoverable pool of Kazakusan treasures. Locusts was a powerful card, but not as powerful as Book of the Dead and other more directly lethal options. Turns out being able to discover those options more consistently was a buff to Kazakusan, not a nerf.
@@enderdavis591 Anu numbers for that? Cause IIRC the card was much less prevalent in standard post-nerf, where the locusts were an actual issue. Cutting the singular best card may make the second best pick more consistent but also more frequently gets you the bad options - which is even more true with excavates because it's not a discover (though they're more even in power).
my first two Maruut plays were my last. trash, garbage, and a Mistake, two plays in a row in different matches. somebody else can make sense of that nonsense, i moved on
"It's not useful to classify decks into archetypes" is a weird take from Roffle. Generally, knowing who is likely to win if the game goes late is an extremely important part of understanding any matchup in an asymmetrical turn based game.
13:15 I couldn't disagree more. Classifying decks absolutely is an important skill. Knowing if your deck is more of an aggro deck than your opponents should 100% influence your decisions in game.
deck classifications serve only to explain the most general game plan the deck has. The idea of whether a deck is more "aggressive" than yours is something that really never comes up in decision making, and in fact is really hard to quantify. If I'm playing pirate rogue and my opponent is playing shudderwock shaman i know i need to kill the opponent quickly, not because of some arbitrary reason like my deck is more "aggressive" but rather because I know that shudderwock shaman is a slower deck with more value than mine. Perhaps we should take a less archetypal extreme case and look at something else. If I'm playing shudderwock shaman and my opponent is playing quest mage, which deck is more aggressive? Either way you chalk it up what informs your decision making is how fast you can set up your game state to win, Either by going infinite or killing the shudderwock player as quest mage, or by chaining activations of loatheb as the shudderwock player. What i mean to say is: understanding specific decks, their win conditions and game plans, informs you of all the matchup information you would get from the broad archetypal classification, and more. the archetypal classification is a broad generalization of how a certain group of decks usually interacts with another certain groups of decks, and is broadly meaningless when you start understanding the individual decks on their own level.
What I meant was classifying decks in abstract is not helpful. Contextually, within a game it is a useful skill to determine who the aggressor is but even then, the answer can vary within the same matchup from game to game (or even over the course of a game). Labeling a deck as aggro/midrange/control in abstract can lead to incorrect assessment of your role in a game. Not only that, but those terms mean different things to everyone and, in my experience, leads to long discussions about what archetype the deck actually is, which doesn't necessarily help you pilot it better.
First game is hilarious.. just highlights how braindead it is piloting aggro pally these days, even mentally challenged people can play it at Diamond rank 5 lmfao
That Shaman discovering 3 1-drops off the legendary was hilarious.
And then he got triple red colored pirañas
Paladin is excavating now. This can only end with duty being reported for.
Reporting for duty!
Haha Duty
Reporting for duty!
Reporting for dirty!
I think chat is confused. Adding more cards to the pool of possible cards in a random mechanic generally makes it worse, even if the cards added are slightly better, since unless the point of those cards is to play generally good cards, you want the specific options it generates. And the excavate options have wildly different uses and thus diluting the pool makes it generally worse.
Excavate is mostly about generally good options though, trying to get one specific one is just desperate last chances. In general I can’t see this not making excavate better.
We experienced this in reverse when Locusts was cut from the discoverable pool of Kazakusan treasures. Locusts was a powerful card, but not as powerful as Book of the Dead and other more directly lethal options. Turns out being able to discover those options more consistently was a buff to Kazakusan, not a nerf.
@@enderdavis591 Anu numbers for that? Cause IIRC the card was much less prevalent in standard post-nerf, where the locusts were an actual issue. Cutting the singular best card may make the second best pick more consistent but also more frequently gets you the bad options - which is even more true with excavates because it's not a discover (though they're more even in power).
That Maruut Stonebinder was one of the saddest things I've ever seen in HS.
my first two Maruut plays were my last.
trash, garbage, and a Mistake, two plays in a row in different matches.
somebody else can make sense of that nonsense, i moved on
I can't belive the paladins would hurt our earth like that just to get some valuable rocks 😔
youre telling me a desert sun strengthened these rays?
Been playing this deck, is very fun
I agree, it got my brother back into hearthstone after he was on the verge of quitting.
i tried the reno version of the deck i only play excavated cards from the mirage card so i don't have reno in the deck but it is highlander
No, everyone knows Delve is a Path of Exile mechanic
But path to exile is a magic card
it's hard to draw cards with this deck concept.
i think i've solved the problem but there are substantial compromises
i'm stealing this, thanks :)
thank you for the video and the deck
I miss Wild Roffle :(
I clicked just for the WELL MET!s
Roffle and Uther look suspiciously similar 🥸
Roffle does sell the holy light now. This is a conspiracy indeed
this deck could use more card draw
"It's not useful to classify decks into archetypes" is a weird take from Roffle. Generally, knowing who is likely to win if the game goes late is an extremely important part of understanding any matchup in an asymmetrical turn based game.
Well met!
Good day Roffle, BBD250, Deathwing, Dylan, Diddle, Zlatan, Roman, Darth, Loco, Shallow, Rick, Ohh, Ferzan, Statisticserino, Alessio, Jynxix, Teeth Collector, William, Brian, Ali, Crimson, Kevin, Cem, Freddy, Hooman, Lawn, Kenneth, Omit, Ângelo, SihYuan, Lily, Kai Kiat, Mathew George, Azalea, Ram, Miggy, Maciej, Shokaku, Time_Keeper, Blue_Toadette, CoepliS, Nala the Husky Pupper, Arcade Wizard, Laurens, Pinkyd, Chuang Ken, BlindMarian, DaGuy Vikavolt, Seth Phillips, LONESOMERANGER, Some Loser IDK, Adam Ghozayel, Zain Lockson, Gor, Blueportal, Chloe, Raphael Farisi Hadiwijoyo, Abn100, Meganinja44, Insane Saxon, Josh Bossul, Carla Buoni, Velkyn, "TrickyGamer, The Unpredictable", Grand Crusader, PottedPlantTV, Eloy Valls, Kamil Czyżkowski, Zeke Suwaratana, Humble Surfer, Nudnud9, André Moraes, CamW, Trystian Tapia, CrimtS, Jamie Johnson, Niels Ritsma, John Doe, Zongee, Centor111, Metlina, Aaron Low, Caseus Petram, TR, Otterlot, Dexter 1309, Fuzzydadino, Arun Chebrolu, Irium, Wizard Lizard, Pico Senpai, Mahmut Alp Erdem, Crippling Autism, Ruckus, Yee Yee, Aidan Lee, M J, Bengan Bengtsson, EnderPlays Vidja Games, Marc Gebby Lauron, Warrior Vat, Random Dude, Cyburger, Joseph Henry, Ivands, Asamalasala, Micah Turner, Proffesor Ryze, Aifakh Yormum, Simonicks, OneTrickGirl, Asriel🗿, WheelO'Time, Hepsima, WeazR, More Powder, Layne T. Staley, Gustavo Dos Santos Nunes, Klav, Coladud, Matthew K, Finnyan, Janson Chia, Robert, KermitTheFrogs GreenMemeMachine, Ponies of DEATH, Zi, Excuse me but what, AdelaideD219, DevilVocano, SCP Televised Karl Eik Antonsen, Jami .J, George Washington, Awesome DayZ, HexaTwo, Yifun618, Muniz_z, Lovwes, Zach P, Anders Hein Jessen, AragNoa, Deerman Dere, Mrac, Adel Amara, Ale, That1Femboy, The Jester, Kordin Yo, Alfonso Marchese, Ekpilot, EMETH, Patrick Cho, Caseus Petram, SirMad, ColonelCat and Geoffrey Brown, I hope you guys have a good day.
Well met!
howdy howdy gamers hope yall have a good day
First game was a bot😂😂😂
And he's at Diamond rank 5.. its such a joke of a deck lol :P
Welp. Time to just hard avoid paladins even harder. Why tf they haven’t nerfed like half the cards in this class is beyond me
yeah, they excavate now.
13:15 I couldn't disagree more. Classifying decks absolutely is an important skill. Knowing if your deck is more of an aggro deck than your opponents should 100% influence your decisions in game.
deck classifications serve only to explain the most general game plan the deck has. The idea of whether a deck is more "aggressive" than yours is something that really never comes up in decision making, and in fact is really hard to quantify.
If I'm playing pirate rogue and my opponent is playing shudderwock shaman i know i need to kill the opponent quickly, not because of some arbitrary reason like my deck is more "aggressive" but rather because I know that shudderwock shaman is a slower deck with more value than mine.
Perhaps we should take a less archetypal extreme case and look at something else. If I'm playing shudderwock shaman and my opponent is playing quest mage, which deck is more aggressive? Either way you chalk it up what informs your decision making is how fast you can set up your game state to win, Either by going infinite or killing the shudderwock player as quest mage, or by chaining activations of loatheb as the shudderwock player.
What i mean to say is: understanding specific decks, their win conditions and game plans, informs you of all the matchup information you would get from the broad archetypal classification, and more. the archetypal classification is a broad generalization of how a certain group of decks usually interacts with another certain groups of decks, and is broadly meaningless when you start understanding the individual decks on their own level.
What I meant was classifying decks in abstract is not helpful. Contextually, within a game it is a useful skill to determine who the aggressor is but even then, the answer can vary within the same matchup from game to game (or even over the course of a game). Labeling a deck as aggro/midrange/control in abstract can lead to incorrect assessment of your role in a game. Not only that, but those terms mean different things to everyone and, in my experience, leads to long discussions about what archetype the deck actually is, which doesn't necessarily help you pilot it better.
First game is hilarious.. just highlights how braindead it is piloting aggro pally these days, even mentally challenged people can play it at Diamond rank 5 lmfao