Quote Originally Posted by dndfreak View Post
But if one deck is the only deck that beats you naturally, then that's the ONLY deck you need disruption for. If you're playing a deck that naturally loses to multiple popular heroes/strategies, stop adding cards and go play a better deck. Do you see what I'm saying? The typical list runs 24-32 slots dedicated to winning the game. The rest is hate and draw engines. Cards like CB, retreat, shriek, acid jet, all of them are best suited for specific decks. Your own deck should already be well suited to face specific decks, so you don't need to have disruption against them and can easily afford the cut.
Yes, i understand what you are saying. I just think its a waste to change a deck (or hero) if it can be tweaked to fit into the meta. And personally, i don't like to play T1 heroes so i have to find ways to deal with them. I have a particular hero build that i can tweak to beat DC consistently, but i cant' beat Eladwen with it. I have a particular hero build that i can tweak to beat Eladwen consistently but i can't beat DC with it.

So do i change the hero? based on what u suggest, the answer seems to be yes.


@ringel, I won't increase the deck size beyond 39 for logan, see my post below

Quote Originally Posted by Atomzed View Post

Also, you will realised that this argument of slightly bigger decks will not be applicable to all heroes. Like mages. If i playing a pure burn mages, I will never go beyond the minimum no. As you said, consistency...and the fact that there's no counter to DD now. If i playing warriors, i will also not go beyond the minimum no. Bloodfrenzy is a great card drawing engine that gives the greatest advantage for a mid-duration game. I will not want the game to go into long-duration, bec the cumulative dmg from Bloodfrenzy is going to be more significant. As such, the chances of me drawing that 2-additional cards is not going to be high.