How to fix Hunters in *two* small changes (post-BRM update)

[Mormolyce]

Back in January I made this thread suggesting a change that I thought would go a long way to toning down the excesses of face Hunter with as little disruption to the game as possible, and without severely nerfing Hunters. At the time I thought one card change would be sufficient, but in a post-BRM world I feel like they'd actually need to do slightly more, namely:




With these changes, Hunter remains strong, face Hunter remains strong, even Kill Command and Quick Shot remain useable but they have significantly less unpreventable face damage. Which Hunters, with their natural charge-centric kit and hero power, REALLY do not need more of. They would still be able to do a lot of face damage and close, but it would be far less egregious than it is today.

[Deleted]

hunters are fine, you just have to learn how to play a bit better.

[Mormolyce]

hunters are fine, you just have to learn how to play a bit better.

You mean play Hunter?

[Reyzzz]

Hunter doesn't need any nerf, but control decks need a buff.

Something like a 1 mana 1/4 taunt, can't attack.

[Vankrys]

one simple change, not hunters related. Make the hero life at 40 health.
it will reduce the effectiveness of aggro deck that are running rempant lately while still keeping them somewhat viable.

[Deleted]

if it's minion only, the damage should probably be upped to 4, to make it on par with warlock shadowbolt.
one might argue but it has a card draw, but that is only certain circumstances in a class that lacks any viable card draw so i think that part shouldn't be changed if the damage would be upped a bit.

[Deleted]

if it's minion only, the damage should probably be upped to 4, to make it on par with warlock shadowbolt.
one might argue but it has a card draw, but that is only certain circumstances in a class that lacks any viable card draw so i think that part shouldn't be changed if the damage would be upped a bit.

Buzzard.
And also, huck funters are fine, just tech against them and its easy peasy.

[Frumpy Frumpy Frak]

Since time immemorial, each new card game has brought with it a new generation of kids whom have no idea how to defeat the aggro deck archetype, and so they proceed to cry out against the "injustice" of it.

This cycle is destined to repeat itself until the end of time.

[Ravex]

Back in January I made this thread suggesting a change that I thought would go a long way to toning down the excesses of face Hunter with as little disruption to the game as possible, and without severely nerfing Hunters. At the time I thought one card change would be sufficient, but in a post-BRM world I feel like they'd actually need to do slightly more, namely:




With these changes, Hunter remains strong, face Hunter remains strong, even Kill Command and Quick Shot remain useable but they have significantly less unpreventable face damage. Which Hunters, with their natural charge-centric kit and hero power, REALLY do not need more of. They would still be able to do a lot of face damage and close, but it would be far less egregious than it is today.

That wouldn't fix them, that would destroy them.

[Solmyr13]

Fixing the meta is stupidly simple; increase HP by X amount for each hero (for example, 40 hp).

Or make it so you have to have X Class Cards per deck. Right now hunters run almost no hunter specific cards other than "blow them up faster" cards. If you said a deck had to be at least 50% class cards it solves the problem and creates a whole new meta. Otherwise you're going to have to build specific counters to hunters which loses to most other decks.

[Deleted]

They gave up on trying to make control hunter viable and just gave them another face hunter card in BRM (quick shot)

Hunter "control" cards are somewhat good though. Explosive shot is very nice removal, highmane is a solid annoying sticky creature, Ghazrilla is 6/9 base which makes it immune to BGH unless triggered, Krush is sort of an aimable Ragnaros for 1 more mana, Gladiator's Longbow is my favorite weapon in the game, allowing me to attack anything without severe face damage from removing something really big.

Thing is, these cards cost a lot of mana and hunter decks don't make it that far. If you survived 8 turns vs hunter he's most likely out of hand and you win.

They'd need to redesign the whole class from scratch to kill the face hunter memedeck.

[fengosa]

hunters are fine, you just have to learn how to play a bit better.

Hunters have pretty strong since Naxx. They're the number one class in constructed most months. It's hard to argue that they're not slightly overpowered. As others have said, control could likely use a buff.

[Vankrys]

Buzzard.
And also, huck funters are fine, just tech against them and its easy peasy.

hunters are not fine. The class does not offer a viable control alternative. not necessarly a highly competitive one, but at least a viable. Everytime i face hunter and i see it clearing the board, trying to keep control of the board, it sad, but i say i just won, and 95% of the time i just win. Controlling the board is a weak strategy for hunter. it's a waste of ressource.

i want to play hunter. I love late control deck, and i try m best to make a late control deck work for hunter but it doesn't work, you have to go face face face. That is why hunter is not fine and need fixing. Lowering the face deck power, and in counter part, buff their mid and late game deck.

look at mage for example, you have multiple way to play a mage, even competitively. freeze, tempo, mech and possibly some other inventive deck Warlock, same, you have handlock, zoo, demon, even murloc (though not that common lately). Hunter o just face variant, and that's why i don't play hunter.

[Deleted]

hunters are not fine. The class does not offer a viable control alternative. not necessarly a highly competitive one, but at least a viable. Everytime i face hunter and i see it clearing the board, trying to keep control of the board, it sad, but i say i just won, and 95% of the time i just win. Controlling the board is a weak strategy for hunter. it's a waste of ressource.

i want to play hunter. I love late control deck, and i try m best to make a late control deck work for hunter but it doesn't work, you have to go face face face. That is why hunter is not fine and need fixing. Lowering the face deck power, and in counter part, buff their mid and late game deck.

look at mage for example, you have multiple way to play a mage, even competitively. freeze, tempo, mech and possibly some other inventive deck Warlock, same, you have handlock, zoo, demon, even murloc (though not that common lately). Hunter o just face variant, and that's why i don't play hunter.

No need to nerf one viable deck type because you don't like it. But i would also love some kind of beast hunter. Diversity is good, deal with it.

[Solmyr13]

No need to nerf one viable deck type because you don't like it. But i would also love some kind of beast hunter. Diversity is good, deal with it.

The issue isn't that "you don't like it", the issue is that at least every 3rd deck you play is that type of deck because of how strong it is. In any TCG if one deck becomes completely dominant they take steps to bring it back to the pack (Yugioh had the Chaos Emperor Dragon a long time ago, MtG had Archbound Ravager. As you can tell from these statements I haven't played these games in years). The biggest issue with facehunter, imo, isn't that it's skill-less it's that everybody and their mother plays it because of the simplicity that's innately built into it. I want to go up against different types of decks, not just facehunter every other game.

[Raiju]

No need to nerf one viable deck type because you don't like it. But i would also love some kind of beast hunter. Diversity is good, deal with it.

One viable deck type? The entirety of hearthstone is about bumrushing the enemies face. I don't quite get why they bothered to have so many cards designed for a controlly deck, when they don't even support the deck style being viable.

[Vankrys]

No need to nerf one viable deck type because you don't like it. But i would also love some kind of beast hunter. Diversity is good, deal with it.

regarless of my preference, when there is only one way to play a class, that is face rush, when ignoring most of class card, one can reasonably say there is a problem with the class.

[Fluorescent0]

regarless of my preference, when there is only one way to play a class, that is face rush, when ignoring most of class card, one can reasonably say there is a problem with the class.

Midrange hunter is stronger than face hunter in this meta. The fact that at rank 18 people can't play midrange correctly nor against face correctly does not mean it should be nerfed.

[Mormolyce]

One viable deck type? The entirety of hearthstone is about bumrushing the enemies face. I don't quite get why they bothered to have so many cards designed for a controlly deck, when they don't even support the deck style being viable.

Rush Hunter is the only viable deck that has the sole strategy of zerging face, ignoring the board and never trading. It's almost entirely responsible for the perception you mention.

You literally never trade as a Hunter if you aren't forced to. Ever. If you do you lose because your whole deck is weak charge minions and other nonsense and you're 100% reliant on your mindless no-brain strategy getting them within lethal range before they can stop you.

It requires zero thought or understanding of the game mechanics and that should NOT be the dominant playstyle for any class, let alone the only viable one. Nerf face hunter and midrange/control hunter decks might finally get a chance to be a thing.

[Rennadrel]

Change Knife Juggler to not be so strong for a 2 mana cost card, make it a 3 or 4 or make it 2/1 for 2 cost.