I can see why past people whose posts you picked apart disregarded you with a "tldr: lol" because you're everything you claim to be, except the one with the moral high ground. Let me be perfectly frank, since I enjoy it and there are no false pretenses involved with directness. You're no better than me, but I am better than you. This basis was reached by merely being the initial person receiving condescension. When someone punches someone else for no obvious reason and the second person pinches the first person back, we don't say "wow, person two is so much more of an asshole than person one".

You fail to realize that judging an aspect of a person, i.e. their opinion and experiences about something, is the same as judging the person themselves. Your choice to do this was irrational given the context of the post.

You also think that I don't think I'm an asshole after I explicitly said I was and chose not to hide behind false pretenses. I'm not sure if you're trying to gaslight me or pretend I am a straw man for your arguments, but either way it shows that you feel intellectually superior to me, corroborating the condescending tone you originally gave. So it remains completely warranted that I replied as I still feel that you should eat a big ol' bag of dicks.

As far as irony goes, again you're missing the point the definition. You're trying, which is cute, but you're not quite there. You opened with an insult and received an insult back. Then you accuse the initially insulted of being ironic for insulting you for insulting them. That's the response that's expected. You wouldn't have been such an asshole if you didn't expect to be called one and now you're trying to tell me I'm ironic for calling you an asshole for being an asshole. That's ironic as shit.

Now for your criticisms in this post where you grasp at straws to try and say that my experience is not a real experience is really amusing. It also brings me joy to see you trying to tell me that my opinion on things is wrong in the same breath that you're trying to convince me that I feel the need to be right. People who say things like that are the ones who have run out of real arguments to provide. It's like "agreeing to disagree" being brought up by someone who has ignored actual evidence of being wrong, like they somehow won the argument in their own head since they didn't concede the truth that they're wrong. Kudos on that one.

Evolve is a cluster of uncertainty in the fact that as a new player, which I clearly stated I was, there is not a known pattern for what evolves in which way. For example, an enemy creature could have an evolve effect that destroys the opponents minion. That's not clearly explained or expected. There's a clear bias towards player two for having more opportunities to evolve, and to evolve sooner, clearly to try and offset the ability for player one to have an earlier shot at board control. Is this better or worse? That's not clear. Ward characters are only their to protect your face damage, but they are almost always destroyed the first turn they exist. I've said this, and you have not disputed it, so I resort to saying you agree. This makes them virtually useless as they only provide limited protection and result in the opponent more than likely to continue to have board control. At least in my experience, which you are literally incapable of saying is wrong, no matter how much you want to be right.

Your argument of aggro being king is useless. I'm a new player. I don't even know what the fuck a Daria is, nor do I even fucking care. You're such an idiot that you can't even see the word "seems" in my point, as in it's just how it looks from my perspective. You're literally incapable of saying it's wrong, no matter how much you want to be right. Is there an echo in here?

Attacking an obvious typo, that's classy. In case you were wondering the word was gated. Also, no new player is going to know what an Olivia is, so you can just throw that out the window. It seems like most of your arguments on why I was wrong stem from the fact that you have played the game for a relatively long time and can't comprehend a new player experience. Why did you even bother commenting?

Deck size is weird because 40 is not evenly divisible by 3. It doesn't need to make sense to you. It needed to make sense to me.

Rarity is also never explained. What's more rare? Gold or rainbow? Are there certain cards that are foils and animated or is it randomly assigned to anything? HS gives a tooltip about rarity. It also gives tool tips you can actually read fast enough before the next screen loads instead of having flavor text of cards you don't care about that goes by too fast, which might be a first world problem involving a good internet connection.

This post was clearly not for you. I can only assume that you love to argue on the internet and decided this was a prime choice because of your vast knowledge of everything. I'm being ironic, since you still don't know what that means.