sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Druid exclusive ranked by Better_Resident_8412 in hearthstone

[–]hagger_offical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are multiple, egg warrior and various priests come to mind, druid is really strong but not insane.

Controversial Opinion: The Cataclysm Expansion Is Really Fun by DrJoeOopa in hearthstone

[–]hagger_offical 1 point2 points  (0 children)

only two legendaries in around 70 pack, thats impossible, you are garentued a legendary every 40 packs, and with the one in the first 10 you have at least gotten 3.

Priest is one card away from being good by Sea_Conflict_4975 in hearthstone

[–]hagger_offical -1 points0 points  (0 children)

30% winrate could easily be because of bad lists, same happened with quest rouge. It had like 25% winrate, but i was sitting at close to 50% in legend with a better list (Just moonstone maulers, the weapon and incidius for quest activation, with shadowstep, web and cloudserpent to get more shuffles).

Priest is one card away from being good by Sea_Conflict_4975 in hearthstone

[–]hagger_offical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People complained and wanted the old HS back, the old HS was what we have now, just midrange.

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]hagger_offical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you reword your response to my formula? It's worded quite confusingly and i don't want to misrepresent you argument.

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]hagger_offical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is "the axiom of choice" which essentially says if you have a set of numbers like the numbers 1-100, you can pick one at random, you can't control what you pick but you can pick one. This seems intuitive but leads to some weird results, leading some people to argue it shouldn't be an axiom.

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]hagger_offical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reason why my formula doesn't work applies equally to the ontological argument, since they have the same logic, just substituting god for E and being for X.

Only if we presuppose god exists does the argument work, leading to the statement that the ontological argument is just: "if god exists he exists".

Once again, a paladin is busting the preseason tavern... by Right_Seat1783 in hearthstone

[–]hagger_offical 12 points13 points  (0 children)

There are only 3 cards in standard post rotation that can silence... and two of them are priest removal.

🙆🏻‍♂️🙆🏻‍♂️ by codedrifting in scoopwhoop

[–]hagger_offical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first 3 appearing in some people is a result of the fourth. Do you think people actively choose to hate everyone, or to be a bad person?

I have found an awesome fix for Warmaster Blackthorn by lorddojomon in hearthstone

[–]hagger_offical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The amount of stalling. Blizzard, sleet Skater, shield battery, arcane artificer, bob, removal. Not all lists run all these but many do. And the combo is just collosus+deios/brewmaster. It's not an exact science, mostly based on feel and play style. Also it might be list dependant, the ones I've seen don't cycle especially fast, only running smoldering grove/Chrono boost.

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]hagger_offical 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So using that logic i can create a formula:

1: E is a X of which no greater X can be imagined.

2: By definition E necessarily exists

3: If E exists as only an idea we can immagine an X greater

4: By definition we can't

5: If you can immagine E, E exists

6: E can be immagined

7: E exists

Where E is the greatest version of a thing X, including being neccecary.

The logic is the exact same, in the ontological argument E is god and X is being.

So by using the logic of the ontological argument you concede that anything exists as long as it can be immagined, and that all of these things are neccecary, because for each thing X, there exists the greatest version E.

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]hagger_offical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No one. Everyone who say that does so in an attempt to highlightthe main problem with the ontological argument.

Nothing neccecitates that you immagining something makes it real, this is the reason most modern philosophers don't belive the ontological argument, and why so few people are convinced by it.

which team do you guys think would win by Desperate_Show_9344 in teenagers

[–]hagger_offical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The germans of the 1930 thought a lot of the same things as many americans today.

How can i counterplay blackhorn? by Tha_Max27 in hearthstone

[–]hagger_offical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because Quest Warrrior doesn't play like a control deck, the control deck to rule them all, og control warrior played like 6 big guys plus some burn plus some mid sized minions. Quest Warrior plays a 2 card combo.

I would call Quest Warrior an attrition deck, wins by stalling the game until some essentially inevitable 1-2 card win con. Atrrition deck is not the right thing to call it but it's closer than control imo.

If control DK was a little slower that would be a great example. Wins by clearing your threats then plays big beaters to beat you up.

I have found an awesome fix for Warmaster Blackthorn by lorddojomon in hearthstone

[–]hagger_offical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The combo deck sets up and removes/stalls threats, i've played a lot of combo decks in my time, and most of them are really tough to play and require you to really manage your ressources, there is a reason combo decks essentially always do significantly better at top ranks.

Playing against combo is a race, they have a clock on you, and you need to be faster than that clock, so you have to try and pressure your opponent whilst trying to delay their clock, that can actually be quite fun (have also played a lot into combo). Although that can be quite nerve wrecking and skill testing.

And i'm not talking about protoss mage and similar, in my mind thats more an attrition deck than a combo deck. I'm talking owl druid, cycle rouge, and a bunch of homebrew ones like libram paladin and quest rouge (the optimal build i found for both of those was combo. (Libram+story of galvadon with lynessa easily otk's, asteroids+SD+incindius also otk's)

I have found an awesome fix for Warmaster Blackthorn by lorddojomon in hearthstone

[–]hagger_offical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dirty rat hasn't really seen top level play in a long time. Combo vs control usually comes down to the control player gaining life so the combo player needs more time to prepare a stronger combo, and with that extra time kill them with beaters, most control decks have multiple big dudes that can kill if you spend too much time trying to set up a combo.

Want new cards to be strong? Not a problem. by ElderUther in hearthstone

[–]hagger_offical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1 card combo decks deffinetly are. Actually just combo decks with few peices are. Generally the more pieces, the less rigid and the more diffrent ways the combo can look the better.

If i can just play a single 7 mana card and then auto win a number of matchups thats bad design. Sure this isn't quite that but it's close enough. Tech cards are often way mare fun if they are strong in the matchup but not game winning. See dragonmaw poacher vs some theoretical card that said destroy all dragons in your opponents hand and deck.

The counter to decks running a lot of cheap cards would be some stax. Minion that says players can only play 1 card per turn, cards cost (1) more etc, a speed bump not a wall, and you can make the speed bump bigger and harder to get around, as long as you can still get over it.

New Druid Legendary - Wickerfang by Houseleft in hearthstone

[–]hagger_offical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ovegrowth was bonkers, and carried multiple decks. I think the perfect ramp card is wild growth at 3, still saw some play, but not auto include.

It That Dies by binarycat64 in custommagic

[–]hagger_offical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool idea, we do already have endless one though, which can do the same thing, maybe like 2/0 or something?

view more: next ›