Winning vs current Vanar with ANY deck requires a high degree of skill to consistently win against, but that's hardly a positive feature to be attributed to a mech deck - more of an issue with where Vanar and Drogon Vaath are at, presently. Incidentally, the good HS Quests turn the game into two players playing solitaire with occasional random effects, interacting with each other but not in a way to delay the other's quest in any meaningful way - a Quest is delayed or 'countered' purely by draw luck (or discard luck Kappa)
Crossbones cleanly removes at least one (and occasionally the only) win condition of a mech deck - it is a strong silver bullet. Without touching on the rest, I feel its disingenuous to point out Hungry Crab and Golakka Crawler as anti-Mechaz0r! type cards - those cards are akin to Nightsorrow Assassin or Hollow Grovekeper, since the opponent can have any number of Murlocs/Pirates and those cards remove a maximum of 2 of those. It also requires a high degree of skill to win consistently with, especially against factions like Vanar and against highly skilled players. It's just like Hearthstone's quests (which players love), but you don't need a quest card played ahead of time to get them. In fact, it's one of most fresh designs in the game to me. I don't agree that Mech is an unhealthy design. Golakka Crawler? Well, okay you might actually argue Hearthstone's Pirate archetype is unhealthy but for a multitude of reasons, none of which actually include the fact that there's a single tech card that hurts it badly. Hungry Crab? How about Hearthstone's Pirate archetype vs. How about Hearthstone's Murloc archetype vs. hurt bad) by a single tech card, that doesn't make it an unhealthy design. Second - Even if the the entire archetype WERE countered (i.e. The decks Ferocca ran in the DWC were all of the latter variety and none of the former. There are also Mech as one of multiple win conditions, which are not "countered" by a single tech card. The Mech decks hurt the most by Crossbones are the all-in mech decks. So what conclusion are we reaching from this? is mechazor a problem? does it require too specific of an answer? is the tournament format a problem? is the tournament result just a matter of variance with mech being as hard or easy to win against as anything else? or, if a player who ran all mech decks winning the DWC is a problem and we need somewhere to point a finger, should it be pointed at the fact that dragall didn't run dispel in vaath?įirst - The "entire Mechaz0r archetype" cannot be countered by a single tech card. L burn starhorn (couldn't answer mechazor) In the third best of 7 set it was vaath that dragall lost with 3 times.
W reva (ignored mechazor, won with spiral) W vaath (turn 4 concede by ferocca after dragall played his second lavaslasher) L vaath (mechazor not played, ghost seraphim + spirit of the wild) this is the interactive skill based gameplay we want to see winning tournaments as opposed to no skill uninteractive mech decks?) W burn starhorn (17 damage out of hand on turn 6 from tectonic spikes and double entropic gaze because a decimus went unanswered. In the second best of 7 though dragall's only loss was with vaath. L reva (shroud, double inner oasis on chassis) L reva (mechazor not played, just makantor + mandrake) dragall won with starhorn, cassyva and vaath and lost 4 times with reva. in the first best of 7 set it appeared that way.
The first misconception i want to address is that dragall having one deck that had an especially bad matchup against mechazor is what determined the outcome of the tourney. dragall won the next best of 7 set 4-1 then bcuz double elimination they had a second best of 7 set which ferocca won 4-3.
dragall won his way out of the losers bracket to face ferocca again in the grand final. ferocca won the first 4-3 sending dragall to the losers bracket to compete for a chance to stay in the tourney and progressed himself to the grand final. There were 3 best of 7 sets between ferocca and dragall.
0 kommentar(er)
