MArcomage

Now the rares to too rare to base your strategy on and the commons are too weak so we are left with uncommons when i build a deck and i have built 14 of them i noticed that most of the time there are some uncommons that i would like to add in my deck how about we increase the uncommon required in decks to 20

Just a rule of thumb: Always have the lowest amount of cards possible in your deck. (Except your playin a battle of wits deck in MTG, but thats a completely diferen thing). You want to draw the cards your deck is reliing on often and want to consider to not draw other ones. Because of this, its most time usefull to have only the lowest amount of cards possible in your deck and the most redudancy you can get your hards on.

Adding new uncommons would just dilute your strategy and would overall lead to a weaker deck. I see why it can be considered (e.g. you want to fit a last sabotae to your deck againt tower decks), but it would make metagaming against a special deck too easiely and on the other side would lead to overal weaker strategies. I don't know if it could implemented, because its changing something on the fundamental structure of the game, but the upside of this is quite low for this amount of work.

It could be even harmfull for new players.

Edit: Commons are no weak at all. They have low impact, thats true, but they give the support and recources for your decks. Many decks will fall apart if they only want to get rid of their commons.

As Lord Earthfire Said. Commons are not 'weak', they are efficient for their low price and bring you forward victory when you construct your deck right. Efficiency is what makes a card good, not their impact on the turn. (Which is why the Vampire you've put in your non-Undead Rush deck, say, is an awful choice without the keyword benefit.)

Dwarven wall is not good since you build lots of Wall. You build lots of wall for at a low price. Dwarven wall is always efficient. Then, you wouldn't put Prairie in an attack deck, would you? Because the card is inefficient when more than half your hand is attack cards. But in a defensive deck, Prairie becomes efficient(one resource for seven? Yes please) and you can always play it, no matter how crippled your resources are.

Quite simple is the fact decks would NOT work without commons. Not just most of them, all of them would fall apart. For every theme and keyword, there are only a handful uncommons at low price. Even without resource steal, you would run out of everything every third turn.

Don't ask for people to change the game for your form of play to work better:/ Learn how to play. I played against you and beat you with gimmick decks. You're still in your baby shoes. I have proof in replay form you have no clue what you're up to yet.

Just one thing: Vampire in a rush deck functions as a decent finisher, since from the gem perspective it got the best damage to recource ratio. And most of the time when you want to play it it will be, for the rush deck, among the last 2-3 cards anyway, so the drawback is neglectable. (I prefer the two swift mages for the gem usage, but in a rush deck vampire is still a reasonable choice, it depents how ou build the deck.)

Anything else is quite agreeable.

Lord_Earthfire wrote:
Just one thing: Vampire in a rush deck functions as a decent finisher, since from the gem perspective it got the best damage to recource ratio. And most of the time when you want to play it it will be, for the rush deck, among the last 2-3 cards anyway, so the drawback is neglectable. (I prefer the two swift mages for the gem usage, but in a rush deck vampire is still a reasonable choice, it depents how ou build the deck.)

Anything else is quite agreeable.

Yeah, but he sat on the damn thing for the entire game from the first turn - even when he had lethal in his hand. I recall I screamed at the screen "YOU HAVE LETHAL, YOU IDIOT! PLAY THE FUCKING VAMPIRE!" and variations thereof for three minutes. Obviously Vampire is not for him when he is too fixated on the drawbacks to WIN. And even then, you shouldn't hold onto the Vampire for the last hit from your starter hand and let it keep a card slot full.

Zaton as i told you i am CLEARLY better than you just look at your stats seriously you loose more than 2 games before you win 1 while i win more than once for every one i lose and you mentioned you play a lot with sillenia and lose most of the time well i do too and guess what i win quite a bit more then i lose and yes i may still be at my baby shoes but i am still better than you you have no room to comment my skill

I play gimmick decks, MeCho. Had you understood the game the slightest bit, you would have noticed my decks are stupid amalgams of a theme with only secondary regard to how effective they are. My decks are stupid on purpose. Of COURSE I lose most of my games, and of COURSE my statistics will be bad.

And I don't care o.o I love to play stupid, thematic decks, and to make the thematic decks work is even harder than to create a competitive one.

And you STILL lost to them! Badly. Against a joke. They are intentionally bad decks, and not only did you lose, you didn't even understand why, or what the opponent's deck does, or notice they are just joke decks even now. Since you don't understand the game, or the joke, at all, you don't understand why you win, you don't understand why you lose, and embarrass yourself each and every time you pretend.

When you can't comprehend a person who plays gimmick decks has bad scores no matter how good they are, and even when they don't play gimmick decks, a win ratio is no measurement of anyone's skill anywhere, take on your coat and leave. Stick to concepts. Publish new ideas. You're good there. But card games are lost on you. Learn more. Watch Legend Rank Hearthstone streams, there is plenty of them. Don't pretend you understand anymore. Everyone will be better off when we don't have to disillusion you once a week.


'Strong' and 'weak' are not words you use to describe cards in the first place. They make zero sense as descriptors in the context. MArcomage Cards no objective power. You don't understand the first thing.

But you can be a rookie. Newbies have a great time. Ignorance is bliss. You can even make recommendations. Just remember the context. Just don't forget you are a newbie and don't sit on a high horse. Clarify. Ask questions first. Ask why anything happens in the game. Ask whether commons are 'weak', rather than just state as a matter of fact and look ridiculous.

Just learn, sit back and you'll realize MArcomage is fine. DPsycho and Mojko and everyone else already created a good game, and a person who doesn't understand the game yet won't have a ground-shattering idea to change a game feature from the inside out.

blah blah blah you are NOT better then me until you prove otherwise make good decks and get to a better WL ratio than me if your so good then we will talk but this is not about you being better then me its about increasing the uncommons in decks and i think we should for more diversity

Could we please try to discuss the merit of Uncommon vs Common cards without basing arguments on who has what records? What could be useful considerations are being drowned in pointless vitriol.

This is a rhetorical question, I feel I should add. In fact, I'll take it a step further. This is a moderator warning. I'll split the thread and move the irrelevant portions to off-topic if needed.