L0rinda

Pack Prices to be Increased

Sign in to follow this  

38 posts in this topic

6nlbsJw.png

Pack prices in Europe are to be increased as of March 22 2017.

The extent of the price rise varies by region, but if paying in Euros, it is an 11 percent rise across the board. For GBP, the rise is over 20%, and has actually gone from £1.99 to £2.99 if buying two packs!

40 packs in Europe will now cost €49.99, up from €44.99. The price of the Un'Goro prelaunch bundle will remain the same until launch. All of the changes for all currencies can be found on the official forum post by Zaerhinon. 

udf9d30.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The increase is not really that severe, but it is still an increase. I am, of course, not happy about it. Oh well, greedy Blizzard being greedy as per usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, positiv2 said:

greedy Blizzard being greedy as per usual

Have you any insider knowledge whatsoever about the decision-making process behind the price increase?  Rhetorical question.  Global economy 101: dollar strong, pound weak.  Thing in UK cost more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mimech said:

Have you any insider knowledge whatsoever about the decision-making process behind the price increase?  Rhetorical question.  Global economy 101: dollar strong, pound weak.  Thing in UK cost more.

I am not talking about the cost in pounds being increased more than the rest of europe (it will still be cheaper to buy in GBP than in EUR) - I'm talking about the fact that they are going to increase the prices itself. 

6 minutes ago, mimech said:

Global economy 101: dollar strong, pound weak

I could use a bit of global economy knowledge indeed, so what I am about to say might not be true - USDGBP is 0.82, which means one dollar is 0.82 pounds. From this value, I believe GBP is stronger than USD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, positiv2 said:

 greedy Blizzard being greedy as per usual.

They build an entire game and let you play for free if you'd like, making absolutely no money unless you decide to purchase extra content. So greedy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, positiv2 said:

I could use a bit of global economy knowledge indeed, so what I am about to say might not be true - USDGBP is 0.82, which means one dollar is 0.82 pounds. From this value, I believe GBP is stronger than USD. 

That means it's weaker, as you get less dollars for the same number of pounds. If you wanted to travel from the UK to US and exchanged 100 pounds, you wouldn't get 100 dollars, you would get a little less, as 0.82 is not a full figure. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strength of curacy is measured by change in purchasing power.

 

If 1 GBP gets you 2 USD, and it has always been this way then there is no weaker or stronger curacy. A curacy becomes weaker or stronger when there is a change in this ratio. So if if it takes 1.1 GBP gets you 2 USD (and all prices in each country stay the same) then the GPB has weakened in comparison to the dollar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Plergoth said:

That means it's weaker, as you get less dollars for the same number of pounds. If you wanted to travel from the UK to US and exchanged 100 pounds, you wouldn't get 100 dollars, you would get a little less, as 0.82 is not a full figure. 

You got it confused. If 1 USD is 0.82 GBP, then the GBP is indeed stronger, because for 100 GBP you would get more than 100 USD, not less.

Think of it this way, if you want to "buy" 1 USD you would need 0.82 GBP, so for 100 USD you'd only need 82 GBP.

Currency sure can be confusing. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Plergoth said:

If you wanted to travel from the UK to US and exchanged 100 pounds, you wouldn't get 100 dollars, you would get a little less, as 0.82 is not a full figure. 

USDGBP is USD to GBP ratio. If USDGBP is 0.82, then 1 pound gets you 1.2 dollars, just like Ogerscherge said.

 

1 hour ago, Daedrik said:

They build an entire game and let you play for free if you'd like, making absolutely no money unless you decide to purchase extra content. So greedy.

Hearthstone is a pay2win game to some extent, forcing players to pay in order to have a material advantage over other players. 
Blizzard made 6.6 billion USD in 2016, so I don't think they really need that extra money they get from the pack increase. They are just greedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, positiv2 said:

Hearthstone is a pay2win game to some extent, forcing players to pay in order to have a material advantage over other players. 
Blizzard made 6.6 billion USD in 2016, so I don't think they really need that extra money they get from the pack increase. They are just greedy.

Again, it's a free to play game that they spent millions of dollars developing. You can earn almost every card in the game (minus solo adventure cards, which aren't getting a price hike) just by playing the game. No one is being forced to pay to get cards, you can just play and earn them. If you don't like the company, the game, or the policies, no one's forcing you to play, either. Get over it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring some torches and forkes!

We have a heretic who dares to say something against our almighty God Blizzard!

Let's burn him on a stake!

 

It truly is fantastic to see Blizzard Fanboys going into rage-mode if somebody dares to say something about the biggest love in their live...

Edited by WedgeAntilles
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, positiv2 said:

Blizzard made 6.6 billion USD in 2016, so I don't think they really need that extra money they get from the pack increase. They are just greedy.

Newsflash: Blizzard is a company, not a charity. They provide a product, and they have every right to charge whatever they want for their product. If you don't like it, you have every right not to buy it. That's your power as a consumer. 

The goal of any company is to make money. Wanting to make money is not greedy. 

Where do you think the money that Blizzard makes goes? Into Morhaime's pocket? Into Kaplan's? Into Brode's? Perhaps the extra revenue will be used to add more assets to the Hearthstone team. It might make the game better.

And even if Blizzard is just rubbing its hands together manically and cackling, it's still their right as a company to do so. They have no obligation to make the cheapest possible product if that isn't what's best for them, financially.

26 minutes ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Bring some torches and forkes!

We have a heretic who dares to say something against our almighty God Blizzard!

Let's burn him on a stake!

 

It truly is fantastic to see Blizzard Fanboys going into rage-mode if somebody dares to say something about the biggest love in their live...

 If you don't like Blizzard, you shouldn't support them by playing their games or spending money on their products. I'm not sure what you gain from belittling people who enjoy Blizzard games, or want to support the company. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Daedrik said:

Again, it's a free to play game that they spent millions of dollars developing

... and made billions off of it.

9 hours ago, Daedrik said:

minus solo adventure cards, which aren't getting a price hike

Actually, they do. Current price in € is 5.99, but it will rise to €6.99. Please, read the post next time.

9 hours ago, Daedrik said:

You can earn almost every card in the game (minus solo adventure cards, which aren't getting a price hike) just by playing the game.

Firstly, once the adventures are gone and pack expansions are the only ones, it will be significantly harder. For 2800 gold you could have had all the cards from the adventure expansion. With 2800, you can buy 28 packs, which is not even enough to get guarantee you a legendary. 
Secondly, it would take several years of actively playing the game, and even limiting yourself to arena, and even then only at a solid level. That's why there are so many jokes on F2P accounts on hearthstone, like "The first, and probably the hardest trick, is that you should have started playing Hearthstone when it was released so you could keep up with all the new expansions. Well now that may not be possible for everyone, so your best course of action would be inventing a time machine and going back in time." (link) - it's easier to invent a time machine to play HS as a F2P.

7 minutes ago, enviousmtg said:

The goal of any company is to make money. Wanting to make money is not greedy. 

I agree, but in this case, they already make a ton of money, and yet that's not enough for them, so they push the pack costs even higher. That is greedy.

9 minutes ago, enviousmtg said:

Where do you think the money that Blizzard makes goes? Into Morhaime's pocket? Into Kaplan's? Into Brode's? 

I guess it goes to Kotick's pocket, but then again, finances of massive companies like Blizzard is not my specialty.

13 minutes ago, enviousmtg said:

Perhaps the extra revenue will be used to add more assets to the Hearthstone team. It might make the game better.

It's not like they don't have the money they could spend on HS already. Also, the money could go to the development of Call of Duty rather than Hearthstone, and I couldn't care less about CoD.

19 minutes ago, enviousmtg said:

They have no obligation to make the cheapest possible product if that isn't what's best for them, financially.

I don't think paying €45 for digital cards can be  "cheapest possible", so increasing the cost by another €5 is not going to make players happy, I think that's clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I like Hearthstone, yes Blizzard is greedy, yes I like Blizzard still, yes I am f2p casual player, yes if you do not like any of it you are free to go on and make your own f2p card game with blackjack and hookers. 

Yes, I am triggered :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2017 at 6:22 AM, positiv2 said:

The increase is not really that severe, but it is still an increase. I am, of course, not happy about it. Oh well, greedy Blizzard being greedy as per usual.

I wouldn't really call it greed.  If you look at the trend in the euro, it has been decreasing in value compared to the dollar for quite some time, currently (before the price hike) it is cheaper to buy packs in euro's then it is in american dollars.  After the price hike, it will be slightly more expensive to buy in euros then american dollars.  I am not sure how much you know of the game industry, but in general, it costs a large amount of money to export games to other countries.  So when you consider that you are currently paying less for a game that costs Blizzard more to export, and if the current trend in conversion rate between euros and dollars is to continue (which it might or might not, I am no expert on finance so I can't even really speculate only extrapolate from the trend over the past few years), then it only makes logical sense for blizzard to implement a small price increase.  Blizzard as a corporation also has an obligation to their board of directors and stock holders to show growth and profit, and it is hard to defend making less money in a region that costs you more to export to then you do in your home region.  On top of that, Do you have the right to be unhappy about it, sure no one wants to pay more money for a service they are already using, but I don't think it is unreasonable or even unexpected.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VaraTreledees said:

If you look at the trend in the euro, it has been decreasing in value compared to the dollar for quite some time, currently (before the price hike) it is cheaper to buy packs in euro's then it is in american dollars.

The average difference for 40 packs I saw was around 2 USD cheaper for most of the european currencies I looked at before hike, and 3-5 after the hike. Getting 2 packs (taking $3=2 packs) less for the same amount of money on EU compared to US server is in my opinion quite significant. A bit finer pricing for some currencies would certainly be welcome. More frequent changes, like in the case of RBL, would be imo fine as well.
Most of the european currencies seem to be stable after the drop in October/November, but you do make a good point.

2 hours ago, VaraTreledees said:

I am not sure how much you know of the game industry, but in general, it costs a large amount of money to export games to other countries.

As far as I know, most of these costs come from localisations/translations, from shipping and other logistic issues, but none of these are the case, as there were no new languages added to HS, and Blizzard doesn't offer any physical goods tied directly to the items that are getting the price increase.

2 hours ago, VaraTreledees said:

I don't think it is unreasonable or even unexpected.  

I was actually quite surprised by this. Since LoE, Blizzard has been much more generous. They gave us launch quests, return quests and 4-wing adventures. Now, all of sudden, they took the adventures, removed classic cards from standard, and increased the cost of packs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2017 at 6:22 AM, positiv2 said:

The increase is not really that severe, but it is still an increase. I am, of course, not happy about it. Oh well, greedy Blizzard being greedy as per usual.

I believe these prices are also inclusive of ~20% VAT as well, correct?

Thanks, Brexit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually disagree that adventures are good for free to pay players. 2800 gold is roughly a month of daily quests+gold for wins and this is a lot of time.  I have started playing on Americas server two weeks ago mostly to try new arenas while I stockpile gold for Un Goro on European server.

It is impossible to craft any kind of reasonable deck because many key cards are in adventures. IMO, FTP players should be able to craft a top tier deck after few weeks of dedicated playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how much uk corporate tax blizz pay?

I suddenly have a dreadful thought of what tax avoidance schemes they may be using to screw the UK over anyway.

Do I sound bitter yet?


Edit: Bleh, some basic investigation suggests they have been using registered Dutch subsidiaries with special status that are fiscally resident in Bermuda.
 

Edited by SuperFly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Strongpoint said:

I actually disagree that adventures are good for free to pay players. 2800 gold is roughly a month of daily quests+gold for wins and this is a lot of time.

But that is all you needed for an adventure. So you spent your gold earned in one single month for the expansion and had 7 more month to save for the next full card expansion. On the other side, you won't get far with 28 packs. You will pull out 2 legedaries, if you're lucky, while you got 5-6 for each adventure.

Blizzard should be honest and rename the upcoming season to "Year of the Mammon". I will simply go f2p and only play Wild in the future. Having saved up 5k gold for Ungoro packs and 10k dust (including refunds for Rag, Sylvanas, ...) should be enough in this format. There won't be that many new cards you need to stay competitive in Wild, while you have keep your collection continuously up to date in Standard.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kerkermeister said:

But that is all you needed for an adventure. So you spent your gold earned in one single month for the expansion and had 7 more month to save for the next full card expansion. On the other side, you won't get far with 28 packs. You will pull out 2 legedaries, if you're lucky, while you got 5-6 for each adventure.

I can see your point here but I am not sure that I can agree. Three expansions are worse for players because it is more packs to buy with money\gold but it comes from the fact that there will be far more cards.  More cards without more ways to get gold\free packs is a blow for FTP players.

As far as I know 28 packs offer 2800 dust in disenchanting value on average. Adventure wing gives less disenchanting value but it is not random and never give duplicates so it is balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Strongpoint said:

I actually disagree that adventures are good for free to pay players. 2800 gold is roughly a month of daily quests+gold for wins and this is a lot of time.  I have started playing on Americas server two weeks ago mostly to try new arenas while I stockpile gold for Un Goro on European server.

It is impossible to craft any kind of reasonable deck because many key cards are in adventures. IMO, FTP players should be able to craft a top tier deck after few weeks of dedicated playing.

Let's compare Adventure vs Expansion.

League of Explorer had one Legendary Card with huge Meta-Impact: Reno Jackson

And another which is very usefull in quite a lot of decks Sir Finley Mrrgglton

It took us 2800 gold to get these cards.

And there were other cards which were usefull too.

Let's compare it to an expansion. In most expansions there are two or three legendaries with a big meta-impact. And sometimes a few class specific ones.

You need around 3000 gold to get just one legendary card. There are 15 - 20 legendaries in each expansion.

Your chances of getting the meta-defining ones are around 15%, if there are lots of important class legendaries higher.

Since you can disentchant not needed cards (which is not that much in the beginning, since you have 0, meaning your first 20 - 30 packs there aren't many cards you own 3 times+) you can safely asume that you need around 60 packs (with 2 legendaries you probably don't need) until you can craft one meta-defining legendary.

With 2-3 meta-defining cards you need around 120 packs. That is 12 000 gold.

(And if there are more then 3 legendaries you fast reach 15 000+)

That is 4 - 5 times the amount of gold you need to get the important legendaries compared to the adventure.

12000 necessary gold vs 2800 necessary gold.

No, that definitly isn't a HUGE advantage for the adventures. *sarcasm*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

League of Explorer had one Legendary Card with huge Meta-Impact: Reno Jackson

And another which is very usefull in quite a lot of decks Sir Finley Mrrgglton

It took us 2800 gold to get these cards.

Finley is in 3rd wing, which means it takes 700g less - it takes only 2100 to get these two cards.

2 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

You need around 3000 gold to get just one legendary card.

You need 16 packs on average to get a legendary card, assuming you disenchant everything. If you do not disenchant everything (if you keep the good cards that you do not have), the value of packs goes higher.

2 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

There are 15 - 20 legendaries in each expansion.

To make it a bit more accurate - 23 for Un'Goro, 20 for Mean Streets, 21 for Whispers. So, it's more like 20-25, and the average Mammoth standard is 21.3 (let's round it down to 21).

2 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Since you can disentchant not needed cards (which is not that much in the beginning, since you have 0, meaning your first 20 - 30 packs there aren't many cards you own 3 times+) you can safely asume that you need around 60 packs (with 2 legendaries you probably don't need) until you can craft one meta-defining legendary.

With 2-3 meta-defining cards you need around 120 packs.
(And if there are more then 3 legendaries you fast reach 15 000+)

Well, after your 60 packs (though it's a number I disagree with you on), your collection will be much closer to being full, which means you'll need way less packs after the first legendary.
With 3 meta-defining legendaries from an expansion with 21 legendaries, you have a bit over 14% chance to get one of the meta-defining ones whenever you get a legendary. With the average of 20 packs per legendary, once you open 80 packs, you will have almost 50% chance to open a legendary you need/want. This further reduces the amount of packs needed.

Additionally, you seem to be missing that card packs can be grinded in arena even with less than 7 wins average, but to get adventures, you have to get more than 7 wins each time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Aleco
      Think you have what it takes to cast Hearthstone? Blizzard's "So You Think You Can Cast" contest runs through March 18th, offering Hearthstone fans a shot at the big leagues.

      The 2018 edition of Hearthstone's "So You Think You Can Cast" contest is officially underway. Running from now until March 18th, Blizzard is now accepting submissions to their annual contest for casting duos (sorry, solo casters). Speaking as a Hearthstone fan who happens reads Twitch chat during major Hearthstone tournaments, I'd be very surprised if there weren't a few of you out there who think they can do better than the current pros!
      If you think you have what it takes to cast Hearthstone, all you need to do is record you and your buddy casting the match above and submit your video over to HStalent@blizzard.com, along with a bit of additional information which is described in the official blog post.
      Our very own L0rinda won this contest back in 2016 to cast HCT Summer, and I'm angling to submit an entry of my own to this year's contest. Wish me luck!
    • By Zadina

      This is the first Tavern Brawl that is linked to the Wildfest event.
      Wildfest is upon us! From this week until March 11, you can draft Wild cards in Arena while we will also get two special Tavern Brawls. Venture into the Wild is available this week, while the Heroic Wild Tavern Brawl will assumedly be up next week (you can read more about Wildfest here).
      Venture into the Wild is just a Brawl with premade decks for each class that contain Wild cards. Here are the archetypes:
      Aggro/Egg Druid Midrange Hunter Secret Mage Dude Paladin Big Priest Miracle/Oil Rogue Midrange Shaman Reno Kazakus Demonlock Pirate Warrior Most of these decks feel awfully Standard for a Wild event. The aggro decks are pretty good, but you should bear in mind that they all contain copies of post- nerf Patches the Pirate. Big Priest seems to be quite powerful, judging from people's reactions on the interwebs.
      Good luck!
    • By Aleco

      Warrior, Shaman, and Rogue have been struggling on the ladder lately, but these fresh new decks are looking to turn that around.
      Warrior, Shaman, and Rogue have been struggling to find success lately, but that shouldn't stop you from playing them on the ladder! In this article, I break down the best decks for taking on the current meta from the three worst classes in the game.
      It's been a couple of weeks since Hearthstone was hit by a major balance patch, which has given the metagame a healthy amount of time to adjust and adapt to the recent nerfs. Though a few of the top dogs from the pre-patch meta continue to be popular choices on the ladder (such as Cube Warlock and Aggro Paladin), and a couple of previously overlooked decks are now beginning to perform better than expected (Secret Mage and Spell Hunter), the new-look meta has proven itself to be much friendlier towards experimental decks than the previous one. Both Patches the Pirate and Raza the Chained were extremely oppressive to a variety of compelling and interesting strategies, which means their departure from standard should open the door up for a number of slower and grindier decks to flourish. For the remainder of the K&C metagame, this should be great news for fans of decks on the "control" end of the aggro-control spectrum.
      It goes without saying that as the speed of a meta shifts, each of Hearthstone's nine classes stand to gain or lose major percentage points. For the time being, the classes in need of the biggest boosts to their win percentage are Rogue, Shaman, and Warrior.  

      Class winrates in Standard, courtesy of Hsreplay.net
      Not only do these three classes boast the lowest winrates across all levels of play, they can also lay claim to three of the four lowest playrates.

      Class playrates courtesy of metastats.net
      If you're a fan of one of these three classes, it's time to go back to the drawing board and see what can be done to fix this! In theory, a meta which is trending slower and grindier should favor decks with powerful late-game plans and game-ending combos. If you can't go underneath the control decks with a speedy aggro deck of your own, the best way to beat slow and greedy decks is to be even slower and greedier than they are (mill strategies are a perfect example of this), or to find a way to combo-kill them in a single turn before they can end the game with their own win condition (Quest Rogue immediately comes to mind).
      However, the reality of the current meta is very different from "slow and grindy". Four of the top five most played decks are aggro decks (Secret Mage, Aggro Paladin, Spiteful Priest, and Murloc Paladin) according metastats.net. The more things change, the more things stay the same, eh? With that in mind, let's take a look at a few new and unique decks from each of the weakest classes to see how we can take on the current meta.
      Rogue
      No class was hurt harder by the recent nerfs than Rogue. Arguably the best class in the game pre-patch, Tempo Rogue has fallen to a sub-par 47% winrate according to hsreplay.net. Though the nerfs to Patches the Pirate, Bonemare, and Corridor Creeper all hit the deck hard, Rogue is also being held back by the classes natural weakness against go-wide aggro strategies. With only Fan of Knives and Vanish (and sometimes Blade Flurry) as ways to deal with wide boards, Rogue often has a difficult time catching up when far behind on board. Though cards like Elven Minstrel and Vilespine Slayer do a great job of getting Rogue ahead in the first place, they don't have nearly as many ways to interact with a decent Call to Arms pull as the other classes do.
      Though you could try to tech your favorite Rogue out with every defensive Neutral minion you can muster, this would have an equal-but-opposite negative effect on your control matchups. You can only sacrifice so many slots in your deck to aggro before you turn your good matchups into mediocre ones. It seems that the best bet for Rogue is to accept that you'll lose to the best draws from the best aggro decks, but that you might be able to beat their more mediocre or slower draws with a powerful midgame.
      Gallon's Kingsbane Rogue
      The first solid option for Rogue is a low-to-the-ground build of Kingsbane Rogue by Gallon, who peaked at rank 9 Legend with the deck two days ago:

      This build of the deck skimps on cards like Tar Creeper and Fan of Knives to go all-in Kingsbane. It notably runs two Doomerangs and a pair of Counterfeit Coins to power out weapon-buffing minions like Captain Greenskin. The thing I love most about this list is that it knows exactly what it's trying to do (build a massive Kingsbane as quickly as possible) and it doesn't waste precious deck space pretending to be something it's not. It probably needs to draw really well to beat Aggro Paladin or Tempo Rogue, but that would probably still be the case even if the deck ran more defensive cards than it currently does.
      Ryvius' Quest Rogue
      The nerf to The Caverns Below all but killed the Quest Rogue archetype through Knights of the Frozen Throne, but Kobolds & Catacombs has provided the deck with plenty of shiny new toys. Both Zola the Gorgon and Sonya Shadowdancer give the deck even more ways to copy minions, while Wax Elemental provided the deck with a cheap tool to buy an extra turn or two of time both before and after Crystal Core is active.

      Ryvius, a known Quest Rogue aficionado, was able to pilot this list as high as rank 8 Legend recently. He noted the deck is good as long you "avoid secret mage and aggro paladin", which will likely ring true for most successful Rogue lists right now.
      Shaman
      Whereas Rogue was in a great spot before the recent nerfs, Shaman has been in a rut since the release of K&C. Evolve strategies were happy to pick up Unstable Evolution from the latest set, but nerfs to Patches the Pirate, Bonemare, and Corridor Creeper dealt a major blow to Token/Evolve Shaman's power level.
      Fortunately for Shaman fans, the class is equipped with a healthy number of tools for taking on aggro decks. Devolve, Maelstrom Portal, Jade Claws, Lightning Storm, and Volcano all do an excellent job at dealing with pesky aggressive minions, which gives Shaman a fighting chance against cards like Call to Arms and Aluneth. If you want to beat Aggro decks as Shaman, you can probably find a way to do that without having to get too creative. The trick is finding a way to beat Aggro with enough slots remaining in your deck to still beat Control decks.
      Purple's Mill Shaman
      Mill has classically been known as control-beater, so it stands to reason that any mill deck which can weather the storm against the current suite of Aggro decks should be a solid choice for the current meta. With that in mind, take a look at this beautiful monstrosity of a deck:
       
      Purple was able to hold top 100 Legend with this list for 7 hours on stream. What's your excuse?
      Jokes aside, I actually love the direction this deck is going in and think a list like this has a ton of potential. Murmuring Elemental and Grumble, Worldshaker do double-duty in this list, doubling the effectiveness of both Coldlight Oracle and Jade cards. Healing Rain and Jinyu Waterspeaker excel as both anti-aggro and anti-fatigue tools, bolstering the deck's early and late game at the same time. With so many cards in the deck performing multiple functions, its no surprise that Purple was able to find room in the deck for rarely-played cards such as Rummaging Kobold and The Runespear. As a big fan of Shaman, I can confidently state that this will be the next list I'm looking to test and tune for the competitive ladder.
      Frescha's Mill Shaman
      With so many Warlock's running around these days, Hex is probably as strong as it has ever been since its nerf last September. Until Rin, the First Disciple and Carnivorous Cube become less prevalent on the ladder, the best Shaman lists will probably run a pair of Hexes.
      The fact that Murmuring Elemental, Jade Spirit, and Grumble, Worldshaker are all Elementals could also motivate a mill-focused strategy to build a bit more around the Elemental sub-theme, which is exactly what Frescha did with this list:

      I love the additions of Hex and Kalimos, Primal Lord as tools for combating Warlock, and have always been a huge fan of Hot Spring Guardian in Elemental decks. Though it doesn't heal for quite as much as Healing Rain will in the late game, it serves as an excellent road block for aggro strategies and can even have its Battlecry doubled by Murmuring Elemental or Grumble, Worldshaker. The Skulking Geist serves a tool for beating both Jade Druid and Combo Priest, but can probably be swapped out for a Healing Rain or Rummaging Kobold if neither of those decks are popular on the ladder at your rank.
      Overall, I'd expect that the "best Shaman mill deck" would be somewhere between Purple's and Frescha's lists. There's still plenty of room for growth and innovation within the archetype, and I look forward to much of that myself in the coming weeks.
      Warrior
      Warrior has been one of the worst classes in the game since the nerf to Fiery War Axe, and not much has happened in recent weeks to change that. Though Recruit decks showed some brief promise in the early-goings of the K&C meta, the archetype took up most of the new card slots from K&C and has failed to impress in the current ladder environment. I don't expect Recruit decks to suddenly become playable due to the popularity of aggro, but that doesn't that Warrior fans should give up hope. The three new "armor-matters" cards, Drywhisker Armorer, Reckless Flurry, and Geosculptor Yip, have largely been overlooked due to Warrior's abysmal playrates, but could potentially be used to shore up some of the classes old weaknesses.
      It shouldn't be that hard for Warriors to beat aggro decks if they dedicate enough slots in their deck to do so. Whirlwind. Sleep with the Fishes, Brawl, and Blood Razor are excellent against wide boards out of Paladin decks, while Execute and Shield Slam can deal with problematically large minions out of Spiteful Summoner decks. Against the likes of Tempo/Secret Mage, Drywhisker Armorer and Bring It On! are capable of buying additional turns of time. The real question, once again, is how do we plan to beat Control after we have teched out our deck to beat Aggro? 
      Cocasasa's Mill Warrior
      If Mill Shaman is somewhat viable right now, wouldn't a mill deck with two Dead Man's Hand be playable as well?
      Cocosasa was able to reach top 100 Legend with this extremely low to the ground build of Mill Warrior. The deck features only one card that costs more than 5 mana, allowing it to consistently play to the board against go-wide aggro decks in the early game.

      Cocosasa plays nearly every anti-aggro card I mentioned above, trimming on quite a few late-game cards to do so. Coldlight Oracle and Dead Man's Hand (and sometimes Zola the Gorgon) are the only cards which can actually win the game for you in this list. As the mill plan is the only plan with this deck, this particular build of Mill Warrior has less margin for error when playing against control decks than other builds might. If you're brand new to mill strategies in general, you might want to trim a Cornered Sentry or a Battle Rage for something which can stabilize the board for you on turn 10, such as Geosculptor Yip, Grommash Hellscream, or Rotface.
      Fibonacci's Combo Warrior
      Warrior has frequently been able to cobble together a wacky, janky, and totally off-meta combo deck each new expansion. Fibonacci has brewed up the latest (and hopefully greatest) Warrior deck with an OTK in it, though it would be a bit disingenuous to call this a "pure" combo deck.

      As Fibonacci noted in this tweet, this is really an anti-aggro deck which happens to have an OTK in it. As the deck contains just 4 minions, you'll need to rely heavily on your spells to keep the board clear until Woecleaver can come down and pull out Grommash Hellscream for potential OTKs. The combo kill probably won't be as relevant against aggro decks, but it's a necessary evil for beating other control decks. I like this deck for a lot of the same reasons I like the Mill deck; it doesn't need to dedicate that many slots towards actually winning the game, so it is able to pack a diverse array of answers for aggro decks.
      Conclusion
      There is still plenty of time left in the Kobolds & Catacombs meta for the game's worst classes to turn things around. As the meta is currently leaning quite aggressively, any deck built to prey on aggro should be able to find some modicum of success on the ladder. Anti-aggro decks which can also afford to pack a lean and reliable late-game win condition, such as mill decks or combo decks, might also be able to find success against control decks with slower win conditions such as Rin, the First Disciple. Though I don't expect all of the above decks to become mainstays of the meta, I'd expect them all to perform admirably on the ladder in the right hands.
    • By Aleco

      Anton "Dvck" Lund found his way out of a jam on the ladder. Can you?
      Dvck and Aleco discuss the importance of planning ahead, understanding the meta, and knowing when to pivot your role in a matchup.
      The player interviews I've done with RayC and TerrenceM have been some of the most fun and informative episodes of "What's the Move?", so I was very excited when Anton "Dvck" Lund reached out to me via reddit with a play from a recent game of his. Playing as Combo Dragon Priest, Dvck was able to find his way out of a tough spot against Murloc Paladin. Can you do the same?
      In this week's episode, Dvck and I discuss the importance of planning ahead, understanding the meta, and knowing when to pivot your role in a matchup. For what ended up being a relatively short episode by "WTM" standards, I was pleasantly surprised by how much we were able to break down together so quickly. The interview with Dvck was as fun as it was informative, so I hope to have him back on the show soon! If you're interested in watching some high-legend gameplay, be sure to tune into Dvck's stream on twitch.tv.
      You can look forward to a few more episodes about the Hearthstone World Championships in the coming weeks, but I always welcome submissions and suggestions for future episodes. Did you have a favorite play from the world championships? Feel free to link me the VOD here on Icy Veins or send me a message on twitter @Aleco_P.
      Thanks for watching!
    • By Aleco
      Kolento and ShtanUdachi found themselves in nearly identical situations at the world championships - but did they make the same decisions?
      Episode 14 of "What's the Move?" discusses the importance of being mana efficient in the early game, as well as the relationship between speed and value.

      The Hearthstone World Championships were full of incredible plays, sticky situations, and valuable lessons to be learned from the best players on the planet. There were far too many great plays to analyze in a single video, so for the next few episodes of "What's the Move?" I'll be breaking down all of my favorite plays from the World Championship weekend.
      To kick things off we have a pair of Tempo Rogue vs. Highlander Priest matchups featuring Kolento and ShtanUdachi. Both players drew nearly identical opening hands, but did they did make same decisions?
      If you managed to spot a particularly tricky or interesting play from the recent World Championships, please feel free to link it in the comment section below! I'd love to break down as many viewer-submitted topics as I can in the coming weeks and months, and I have little doubt that I may have missed some of the most fascinating plays from the tournament during my initial viewing.
      Wishing you all the best of luck in the post-nerf meta!
      - Aleco