At what turn is the crazy stuff allowed to start

Ok. So you start your game of HS. Both are at 1 mana, nothing too crazy can happen. Then, all of a sudden, a couple of turns later, some really crazy stuff happens and you (or your opponent :)) is dead or completely done for on board. 

So I think we all agree this should not be possible at turn 1 (no fun there). But what would the minimal turn be to have a crazy comeback/miracle/combo/insane-rng turn?

Turn 2? Turn 3? 4? 5?

I am not talking about aggro decks who try to kill you by turn 5 if you do not react by using cheap resources.

But we have some typical examples, like Khadgar's mountain giant army on turn 5 or a very big van Cleef very early, or a board full of pimped murlocs with bloodlust. Stuff like that.

I'd say that depends on the meta. If there are decks that can have a reasonable answer on the turn that specific crazy shit happens, I'd be fine with it. Problems arise when decks can have a massive board which can't realistically be countered by any deck (a Darkest Hour warlock highroll in wild for example). That deck can create a board at turn 5 or 6 which cannot be answered. That, in my opinion, isn't healthy or fun.

A wide board on turn 2 or 3 with 2-3 statted minions can still be countered by a Hellfire, so I can live with a "highroll" like that.

Depends on how OP the play is. Like, 3-4 mana 8/8 has been around for a long, long time and I don't think it was too tilting. If you, however, triple that 8/8 the turn after, that gets kind of sketchy.

I think a crucial distinction between those examples is that the murlocs don't magic themselves onto the board with charge and bloodlust, you actually have to spend at least one turn developing them. That's totally fair if you ask me, provided the murlocs themselves aren't too efficient. A Wispering Woods that made Murloc Tinyfins might be a bit of a problem, for example.

I don't have too much of a problem with Giant + Conjuring either, because mages typically have to split up the combo early on (Giant on four, hope it survives), and even the dream scenario where you play them on the same turn comes down on turn six and requires a full hand. That said, I really dislike the interaction with Elemental invocation effectively reducing the MG's cost by one, precisely because it allows the mage to cheat a turn out of their aggro opponent.

Of the three examples given Cleef is by far the worst offender because he just comes down too early, too hard. Playing a giant minion for cheap during the mid-game is much more fair because at that point most decks will have some sort of answer, but on turn 3 you're screwed in most cases. What's worse trying to build your own board in anticipation of Cleef often just creates a bigger problem by providing backstab and prep/eviscerate targets.

I wouldn't mind seeing the card bumped up to four, maybe even become 3/3 to compensate. That might seem like a minor nerf, but I believe delaying Edwin by one turn and making him more awkward to play alongside other stuff would be significant in a lot of circumstances. I don't want him gone for good, but a bit less unfair and game-deciding would be nice.

TL;DR, I think turn 4 is roughly where single big cheaty minions should start coming out and turn 6 and beyond is when decks should start spawning huge boards out of hand. If the "combo" requires prior board setup (like the opponent leaving up a Vargoth or Khadgar) I think that makes it a ton more fair and deserves 1-2 turns discount.

So basically, if you do not have a big board going by turn 6/7 you are screwed :)

Lately, I see a number of decks that try to "cheat" the big minions early: 

• mountain giants icm cost reduction mechanics
• magnetic stuff icm cost reduction cards (Paladin, Hunter, Priest? every class atm)
• Van Cleef
• Scavenging Hyena, Dire Frenzy

And in general the AOE removal/bord clear is much more a problem than before, since with the token decks you will need not one, not two but sometimes 3 or more bord clears, and in the mean time also build your own bord. And it's almost impossible to remove a board on turn 5 with 4 mountain giants on it. I think this is one of the reasons why we now have such an aggro heavy meta: the aggro decks do not have to be afraid of a lot of bad matchups, only a few can really challenge them.

Imo, 8+.

Before that, only Tempo swings should be allowed (ie bodies with efficient stats/effects), but NEVER deviations from the mana curve (ie summoning stuff from much higher in the mana curve, eg Big Priest, but also Voidcaller).

If those rules were strictly applied when designing new cards, Wild could hardly ever get broken again. Powerful but not broken.

I wish it was turns 6-8

i feel that the longer the game goes on the more meaningful decisions can be made and the more skill and decision making win games.

nothing I hate more than losing the game turn 2-4 because I haven’t drawn an answer yet. Pretty frustrating

It's crazy to think back on decks that were overpowered a few years ago and realize how laughable they would be now. Big minions used to have some value. Now they only have value if you can multiply them, resurrect them, and re-stock them. A card like Oondasta would have been strong once, but now all it does is give you one free big minion. If it's not at least two big free minions, why even bother?

Quote From Zwane

Ok. So you start your game of HS. Both are at 1 mana, nothing too crazy can happen. Then, all of a sudden, a couple of turns later, some really crazy stuff happens and you (or your opponent :)) is dead or completely done for on board. 

So I think we all agree this should not be possible at turn 1 (no fun there). But what would the minimal turn be to have a crazy comeback/miracle/combo/insane-rng turn?

Turn 2? Turn 3? 4? 5?

I am not talking about aggro decks who try to kill you by turn 5 if you do not react by using cheap resources.

But we have some typical examples, like Khadgar's mountain giant army on turn 5 or a very big van Cleef very early, or a board full of pimped murlocs with bloodlust. Stuff like that.

Depends.  The drive that I think everyone is looking for in a competitive format is the ability to anticipate and counter what their opponent is doing.  Thus 'crazy stuff' should be, in most cases, after a point when you or your deck had a reasonable chance of doing something to disrupt or counter the move.

However I will note that in a card game 'anticipate and counter' is mostly handled at the deck crafting level, NOT the game board.  Card games are heavily built in a sort of 'pet battle' system. You build your 'pet' up, tweak them, attempt to anticipate your opponent's pets, then plan a strategy to teach your 'pet'.  Once the game begins, you let the pet go, whisper "good luck", send them off, then hope for the best.  Even in games where you have choices to make in-game, they are mostly there to give you a chance to adapt if things go south.  But, in the end, you win off of your choices before the game.

That's where things go tricky.  If I built a priest revive deck with 0 removal and lose to a mountain army at turn 5, then that's the fault of the priest deck designer.  You did not build your pet up or plan for them to deal with mountain giants at turn 5.  You didn't even put any way to adapt and give yourself a chance to turn the tables if things go bad and you face such a mage.  You failed to plan for this situation. Your opponent did (by killing you before you start reviving at turn 9).  Your opponent has the right to 'crazy stuff' at turn 5.

Thus crazy stuff should be allowed when it punishes decks or playstyles that leave themselves vulnerable to them so long as strategies and decks can be designed to then counter said strategies.  If I can build a deck that beats a mountain giant army at turn 5 (either by killing them early, pressuring them so they can't fully commit, or countering the crazy fully) then it's generally ok.

The one addition I'd add is that stopping the crazy shouldn't end the game outright.  That's is what makes turn 1 crazy games like unnerfed pirate warrior boring: either you die at turn 1 or you slaughter them after turn 1.  Thus if the crazy mode is a one-trick pony deck then that's a problem even if it's stoppable.  If the opponent is disadvantaged but CAN recover then it's a good sign of keeping the crazy.

Lastly I think we should not consider 'god mode'.  God mode is when a deck gets every single RNG thing going for it.  Every good deck, even if it's not designed to be that way WILL have that "OMG I got everything I need instawin!" situation.  That's like netdecking: like it or not you have to accept it if you want to play a card game.

TL:DR summary!!

So yeah, it's not a simple matter.  'Crazy things' are more of a standard of how decks just go.  Decks are not built to be fair. They are built to be unfair, like being able to nuke 20 mana and 5 cards of stuff with a 2 mana sap.  And if your deck can't handle a certain type of crazy it should lose, turn 1 or turn 50 and no you shouldn't have a chance: you're supposed to add one when you build your deck.  

Crazy should be something you can build a deck to counter, and it should leave you disadvantaged but not dead if it's stopped.  "God mode' is acceptable if it's not too common.  

Basically, the technical term for 'Crazy' is 'win condition'.  Just about every deck should have it.  There's no minimum or maximum time on when it goes. It's more about what you can do about it and what happens if you deal with it than when it goes off.

Most classes have access to mass removal for 5-and-up mana, Brawl, mass hysteria, Hagatha's scheme, etc. That's why lategame build-a-board cards aren't nearly as scary as comboes that can pull it off earlier. Astromancer can cheat an obscene amount of mana/stats onto the board but it's fine because she costs 7 mana. Big Priest is a bit of an exception because it not only cheats mana (barnes-> resurrect), it has a seemingly endless supply of boards with mass resurrect and spellstone. If it were just one huge board a la kangor's or Zul'jin it wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem.

I don't agree edwin is a problem. First of all it leaves rogue with an empty hand. The fact they can refill their hand so easy in RoS (lackeys) takes away the downside from playing ediwn, this does not make edwin OP this makes the rogue deck too versatile. That's also why miscreant, raiding party and prep were nerfed.

Second, edwin is easily countered by silence and not putting it in your deck is not on your rogue opponent but on you. You can also play taunt to delay edwin going face or force the rogue to use resources to remove the taunt so edwin can connect face. That evis on the taunt isn't going face anymore, you see? However, putting in that taunt is on you, not on rogue.

I don't think conjuerer's is fine because it seems to be assigned 1 use only; manacheat a board full of giants. Mage doesn't want to use conj on anything else, but is sometimes forced to because pressure, that's not on the mage but their opponent. I think conj should be 4 so it cannot come from trick anymore. I do think it's a fun mechanic, I'm just sad it's only used for the sole purpose of building insane boards. Maybe magic trick is really the issue, I don't see mages run spells costing more than 3 anymore, they only play them if they got them from the cyclone-turn. Also mage can find freeze after freeze after freeze, it's basically ice-block where you are simply delayed in playing your game.

Quote From AliRadicali

Most classes have access to mass removal for 5-and-up mana, Brawl, mass hysteria, Hagatha's scheme, etc. That's why lategame build-a-board cards aren't nearly as scary as comboes that can pull it off earlier. Astromancer can cheat an obscene amount of mana/stats onto the board but it's fine because she costs 7 mana. Big Priest is a bit of an exception because it not only cheats mana (barnes-> resurrect), it has a seemingly endless supply of boards with mass resurrect and spellstone. If it were just one huge board a la kangor's or Zul'jin it wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem.

Honestly what bugs me about Barnes is in it's low risk factor.  In contrast, early game Edwins require holding a hand that's set up specifically for him and leaves you with crap for tempo otherwise.  Crazy shouldn't be do or die for the attacker but it should leave you scrambling to recover a bit.

Barnes is 4/5 worth of power at the worst of times and utterly ruins the game when you get lucky.  You aren't really losing anything if he misses so he's just a free "do I win" instaroll.  If he rolls well and your opponent stops it, you can often be in a BETTER position than them, especially if they had to give up a lot.  

Crazy should come at a cost.  You should feel good about your chances to win if you disrupt or stop it.  You souldn't feel like you have the choice of gaining nothing or losing everything.  

Now a question.

Why you need A answer?

Why you're entitled to answer with 1 card what your opponent did with his entire deck? 

There are decent answers that enable you to continue the game like MC tech.

What not exists is a answer that just wins on spot and such answer should not exist.

Now a question.

Why you need A answer?

This question makes me think you mean something specific and not just "If I play something why should I just win with it?"  Not sure what you mean here though.

Why you're entitled to answer with 1 card what your opponent did with his entire deck? 

The assumption is that the initial question is something that cannot be stopped with normal play.  

For example, while a 3/2 at 2 mana isn't really a 'question' in need of an 'answer' a card combo like Mountain Giant into Conjurer's Calling is something that breaks the normal power level for the mana cost.  If the opponent is proceeding as normal, they will not be able to handle the Tempo and will die.  

Thus a 'question', or A specific question "Do I win now?"  

Note that this is not a problem, but the actual point to deck designing.  That is, at some point, your deck is going to do something 'unfair' to try to win.  

The idea behind such a strategy requiring 'an entire deck' in the first place is that it's meant to be a high risk play.  You are sacrificing value and future play for current Tempo and aggression.  The answer, then, is meant to punish that by letting the opponent counter your Tempo while gaining Value.

Thus '1 card to stop an entire deck'.  It's why cards like Brawl exist.  A similar mentality comes from 3 mana cards like Shadow Word: Death can kill 10 mana Deathwings.

Note that if the cost to remove such a move is the same as the move then there's no point to defending as the aggressor still has Tempo (you stop them then end your turn ) and lost nothing for it.  

So yes, answers need to exist in general and while they don't have to be 'one card' they need to be cheaper than the question.

There are decent answers that enable you to continue the game like MC tech.

MC tech is, to be blunt, a broken piece of mess.

Against a full board he's worthless.  Removing 1 mountain giant out of 4 isn't enough to answer the question or 'continue the game'.  

He's mostly good when it's a board of mostly small fries and something big, to which there's a 75% chance for him to fail and you lose and a 25% chance of a Mind Control styled Tempo swing so bad that you basically win.  

MC tech isn't a 'decent answer that lets the game continue'.  Cards like Brawl do better, as it still gives a value advantage but leaves something on the board to keep the aggressor's Tempo as is.  Even in full board clears, tactics like learning not to overcommit or force an early clear is an effective way to keep the game going, so long as the board clear isn't too broken an advantage.  Which is why flamestrike is a balanced card.

MC tech represents just about all that can go wrong with answers.  RNG based, too wide of a swing between 'worthless' and 'game breaking', thus being both ineffective and too effective without much in between.  

What not exists is a answer that just wins on spot and such answer should not exist.

An effective MC Tech does just that.  3 mana Big Game Hunter was pretty darn close. But yes, answers should not win the game unless the opponent either played poorly (i.e. over-committed) or it's a culmination of an entire game's effort to effectively checkmate the opponent (i.e pressuring a combo deck so that they are forced to trigger their combo too early to 'take a chance' then answering to finish them off).  

Basically a queston or answer, the move should feel like a checkmate situation: either taking an advantage of an unprepared deck/player or the culmination of an overall strategy that could've been disrupted beforehand that required planning and some adaptation to put together.

Turn 2, 10/10 Edvin.

So I hear a general consensus that if the crazy stuff is not too crazy. This means either that it happens at a turn that something can be done against it, or that crazy does not immediately ends the game in one turn. And you should design your deck so it can handle crazy. That's also called teching in cards to handle certain popular craziness. For instance, when rogues where killing you with their weapons, you tech in a weapon removal since otherwise you can't cope with the crazy rogue weaponry at turn 4-5-6. Now with all the magnetic craziness people tech for silence so your magnetized minion gets a little less crazy.

And basically, when stuff is so crazy nothing can stop it reasonably we then call it OP and in need of a nerf. So in fact its an important issue for HS, since we somehow want a "fair fight" and a "balanced meta" where more than two decks can live.

And this is all about standard. In wild crazy is the norm so to speak, that's why its called wild. But even here too crazy is not funny anymore witness the big priest problem.

Maybe also related to OTK decks: if your OTK deck would be a guaranteed certified win at turn 5, this would be a problem. A certified win at turn 13, not so much.

Quote From Zwane

So I hear a general consensus that if the crazy stuff is not too crazy. This means either that it happens at a turn that something can be done against it, or that crazy does not immediately ends the game in one turn. And you should design your deck so it can handle crazy. That's also called teching in cards to handle certain popular craziness. For instance, when rogues where killing you with their weapons, you tech in a weapon removal since otherwise you can't cope with the crazy rogue weaponry at turn 4-5-6. Now with all the magnetic craziness people tech for silence so your magnetized minion gets a little less crazy.

And basically, when stuff is so crazy nothing can stop it reasonably we then call it OP and in need of a nerf. So in fact its an important issue for HS, since we somehow want a "fair fight" and a "balanced meta" where more than two decks can live.

And this is all about standard. In wild crazy is the norm so to speak, that's why its called wild. But even here too crazy is not funny anymore witness the big priest problem.

Maybe also related to OTK decks: if your OTK deck would be a guaranteed certified win at turn 5, this would be a problem. A certified win at turn 13, not so much.

As far as the first part, basically yes.  There WILL be a point when your deck 'cant' be stopped' by the other deck, but the question is, assuming RNG was about even on both sides, was there a reasonable chance for you to turn it around before it got 'too far'.

You have to account for RNG btw.  RNG WILL screw you, or them, sometimes.  To not accept that is to question why you even are playing a RNG based card game.  Basically, you should be able to mark a loss due to either not making the correct choice (which doesn't always mean "you made a mistake" btw, just that there WAS a choice available, even if it wasn't one you typically would've made) or simple bad luck.  

Note though that this is hte MATCH being fair, not the deck.  Decks SHOULD be unfair in some aspect.  Removing 20 mana worth of cards with 5 mana isn't fair.  Dropping 2 8/8s at turn 6 is not fair.  Drawing your entire deck at turn 4 is not fair.  'Not fair' is what makes decks ..well.. what they do.  What makes it fair is that I can find other unfair things to do to stand up to your unfair deck.  

As far as the 'balanced meta'. I've heard a few people put it this way: a good meta will have about 3-4 Tier 1 decks, and a whole mass of tier 2 that can sometimes hold their own, and teir 3s that find niches, like countering 1 tier 1 deck but not the others.  The decks should also not be polarized, nor be completely 50%.  Advantages should give you a 10% bonus/weakness to your win rate, all else being equal.  That tends to be enough to make deck selection worthwhile but allow for tech choices/skill/RNG to shake things up.

Lastly, timing does NOT matter as far as 'guaranteed winning' is concerned.  We thought so years ago when decks won at turn 3-5.  When decks 'guaranteed won' at turn 30, we realized it still sucked, AND it was dull and boring as well.  Winning for sure if you just had the time means that only aggro decks can beat you.  and if they do, then you have a polarized deck (lose to all aggro, win to all control. See original Quest Rogue). If they don't, you have a truly OP deck (see Patron Warrior).

What matters is if the decks can, and must be flexible.  If RNG isn't on your side, or if both people are doing well in their strategy, or you make one move when you should've done another, you shouldn't instantly lose, but you should be forced to change your strategy to secure your win, or find a new win condition.  Whether that happens at turn 3 or 13, it should be a 'thing'.  

How FAST that happens really isn't THAT big of an issue.  A 5 turn game where both sides are hustling like crazy to get their win condition met while stopping the other is MUCH better than a 30 turn game where one side is able to just run through a script and the other is just hoping they get VERY lucky to have a chance.