Undertaker

[Anzen]

I do but I never said the card is overpowered. You've been among the loudest voices that it is.

No that's what I mean, saying a card is balanced whilst running an entire deck based around it :P

[Deleted]

No that's what I mean, saying a card is balanced whilst running an entire deck based around it :P

I'm sorry but that is not how hypocrisy works.

[Anzen]

I'm sorry but that is not how hypocrisy works.

... but it is? I don't mind much, if I actually manage to push legend with this deck, I'll join you on the frontline shouting about how Undertaker is balanced, then when it inevitably gets nerfed, we can both act like we knew it was overpowered.

[Kelimbror]

No that's what I mean, saying a card is balanced whilst running an entire deck based around it :P

Deathrattle priests don't base their whole deck around that card. In fact, we expect that if we get the super draw of UT + Coin + Chow that the UT will be dealt with immediately. I have literally never won a game b/c I got an undertaker that went berserk and killed the other player in a few turns. A death rattle priest has far more synergy than one card...it's about complete control of the board while presenting consistent threats for trading. That's the strength. So complain about deathrattle itself, but this UT convo is just ridiculous.

[Raugnaut]

Oh, great - you just traded your 2 drop for a 1 drop. Nice.

Its actually a cost 1 body card+silence, since the silence effect tends to add an extra mana cost.

[Deleted]

... but it is? I don't mind much, if I actually manage to push legend with this deck, I'll join you on the frontline shouting about how Undertaker is balanced, then when it inevitably gets nerfed, we can both act like we knew it was overpowered.

Speak for yourself. If you want an example of hypocrisy, try some of your own writing. Nothing says it louder than first using every excuse available to say how overpowered a card is and then later coming out smiling, "ohh it's all honky dorey now, I just started playing this myself so it's alright."

[Raugnaut]

Ideally, you kill it for free with your 3/2.

Not quite free. For the mana worm, it could easily be a 2/3, or above if they coin it with a spell. Also, if you are first, you'll only be able to use your 2 drop on turn 3, which easily allows them to frostbolt, giving them great early-board control.

As for their priest, by the time you play your 3/2, they could have themselves a taunt or 2 to hide the priest behind (Deathlords?).

So, yes, ideally you would be able to down 1 drops with a 2 drop. Unfortunately, you will almost never be able to do so.

[Deleted]

... but it is? I don't mind much, if I actually manage to push legend with this deck, I'll join you on the frontline shouting about how Undertaker is balanced, then when it inevitably gets nerfed, we can both act like we knew it was overpowered.

No, that's not what hypocrisy is. Hypocrisy would be if he was saying it was unplayably bad and / or that no one should play it, while playing it himself.

What he's doing is (arguably) being bias, though even that's not a given.

[Deleted]

What he's doing is (arguably) being bias, though even that's not a given.

Ohh he tried that already, because in his mind it is high suspect if someone doesn't agree with him about the balance of cards. The funny thing is, while I do play my priest, my ladder play for the past season has been predominantly handlock.

[Shinzai]

Undertaker's fine, he's only overpowered when played with Kane.

[Noomz]

If you think Undertaker hunter is bad, try facing Undertaker mage with Duplicate... FML.

- - - Updated - - -

... but it is? I don't mind much, if I actually manage to push legend with this deck, I'll join you on the frontline shouting about how Undertaker is balanced, then when it inevitably gets nerfed, we can both act like we knew it was overpowered.

You're a hypocrit because you've sent 7 pages crying hard about how Undertaker is OP and how it shouldn't be like it is. Then you go and run a deck with it and now you're fine with it because you're getting the benefits of it. That's hypocricy, because now you're actually defending it and acting like you've never said anything else about it.

[Anzen]

You're a hypocrit because you've sent 7 pages crying hard about how Undertaker is OP and how it shouldn't be like it is. Then you go and run a deck with it and now you're fine with it because you're getting the benefits of it. That's hypocricy, because now you're actually defending it and acting like you've never said anything else about it.

Woh, woh, I think you've lost a lot of context along the way. I've never said I'm fine with the card, even playing a huntertaker I still think the card is overpowered (see post #118).

I haven't changed my opinion on the card so I fail to see how I'm a hypocrite?

I don't think I've defended the card once in this entire thread.

EDIT: From the looks of your comment it looked like you took #124 at face value, it was sarcasm :P to clear up any confusion.

Man I'd would appreciate not being attacked randomly like that if that's the only comment of mine you've actually read :\

On Topic: Do you guys think the card would lose much of it's strength if it didn't increase health? Would it still be played?

[Shinzai]

On Topic: Do you guys think the card would lose much of it's strength if it didn't increase health? Would it still be played?

Yes, it would still be played, because it's still the equivalent of a Mana Wyrm to non-Mage classes and Mana Wyrm is a card most rush decks wish they could have.

[Symphonic]

On Topic: Do you guys think the card would lose much of it's strength if it didn't increase health? Would it still be played?

I think if they made it have 3 health and 1 attack and only increased its attack, it would function like the mana wyrm. Which would be fine.

[Malkazam]

[Kelimbror]

I think if they made it have 3 health and 1 attack and only increased its attack, it would function like the mana wyrm. Which would be fine.

Mana wyrm benefits from the class cards inherently without having to customize a deck for it while people using undertakers have to 'sacrifice' other cards by intentionally using deathrattles for value. Granted this is mitiated by the strength of deathrattles in general, but that brings us back to complaining about the mechanic mechanic and meta shift in general which is silly.

[Ryme]

Oh look. You just completely prevented the rush tempo that was about to wreck your face causing your opponent to entirely rethink the rest of the game....especially if they built their deck around undertakers. All this for only two mana. The horror. Do people who comment on game balance only play in non ranked or something? B/c they don't seem to reflect how you actually play the game climbing a ladder.

People seem to addicted to raw on the spot value without trying to 'calculate' potential value. It's the reason you don't leave paladin minions alive if you suspect he has a Blessing of Kings in his hand.

[Kelimbror]

People seem to addicted to raw on the spot value without trying to 'calculate' potential value. It's the reason you don't leave paladin minions alive if you suspect he has a Blessing of Kings in his hand.

An apt comparison. I have been constantly improving my play and that was one of the earlier lessons I learned. If you can clear the board at no major cost to yourself, it's probably the right move.

Not only can paladins BoK, but those 1/1's with equality will clear your board with little downside to the pally. I feel like that's one of the things going on in this meta...that people are too concerned with raw value and don't anticipate. This is why you see things like Deathrattle/UT and Handlock going nuts on people. I've gotten to the point where I'm predicting card for card things that are played in some games, but it's a vital tool for knowing how to play. Really you just have to be knowledgeable about current decks, combos, and counters.

This isn't a revelation or anything...it's pretty much how the game is always played. So idk. I'm a pretty average player and even I'm getting leaps better simply by playing more and reading about the game.

[Solmyr13]

I haven't read much of the thread tbh but I've seen this debate time and time again.

Undertaker isn't OP at all. It's a deck that is based around it but it requires so much more. If you DON'T get the leper gnome with it it's really a "meh" card. Or what if you go turn 2? Turn 1 Undertaker, turn 2....? The fact is the meta is currently focused around rush and control and the undertaker rush wrecks control since it can be so fast. The trick is you HAVE to kill the undertaker; people a lot of times like to gamble "does the opponent have X cards", it doesn't matter. I have gladly armor'ed up and coined to shield slam the 1/2 undertaker when given a chance. I've also coined wrath on turn 1 instead of coin rampant to get the 1/2 undertaker. The decks can still work but it's severely hampered without the undertaker.

[ItsXolo]

I find it a lot more funny that people call undertaker overpowered based on perfect draws and chains of presumptions that almost never, ever occur. For one thing, the opposite happens way more often; that you actually draw undertaker and not a single other deathrattle for 2-3 turns. I actually run a heavy deathrattle deck and that is just a simple fact.

Secondly, even if you do mulligan into an undertaker and a host of deathrattles, your undertaker can still be neutered by a wide variety of counters. E.g. every cheap spell in the game or just a simple silence.

So no, undertaker is not OP. It is simply a good card, which is perfectly alright and acceptable.

You don't even need to have perfect draws. As long as you play with 1 single deathrattle minion, it gets amazing value. Any more than 1 deathrattle and it starts to become absurd. And it's not like you have to really invest anything into it that you wouldn't otherwise play. You're just dropping more amazing value deathrattle minions that you'd probably have in your deck even if Undertaker didn't exist.