Huh, now that’s interesting. I left a comment on a post about what cards people thought would/should be reverted to their pre-nerf iterations a month ago, and in it, I mentioned the fact that Quest Mage and Darkest Hour are obviously problematic decks. The response I got from the wild experts there in the comments—e.g., that those decks, specifically Quest Mage and Darkest Hour, were so far from broken I must’ve never played the game and what we should’ve really been worried about is “super broken reverted Raza Priest”—is hilarious in retrospect!
Quite a bit of hilarious speculation in the comments here: “Razakus too broken; Leeching Poison too broken!” Baku/Genn exist, and if you actually played wild, it’s immediately obvious that decks like “Razakus priest” would be terrible even with reverted Raza and an updated decklist.
Since they’ve decided to never touch Baku/Genn, there really isn’t a good reason to not revert all of the nerfs that people have said are “too broken!” Naga Sea Witch, Caverns, Barnes, Aviana, Leeching Poison, etc. They should just let wild be, well, wild. How are the following decks any less frustrating/broken/un-fun/whatever in any significant way: quest mage, secret mage, odd paladin, even shaman, mech paladin, (quest) Mecha’thun warlock, or Darkest Hour warlock? It’s pretty silly to think that, e.g., pre-nerf Leeching Poison mill rogue would even be a strong deck in wild right now. How would you beat quest mage? Darkest Hour with a full board and Nerubian(s), or odd paladin’s unfettered and consistent aggression? The same can be said about pre-nerf Aviana SA decks.
In a world where quest mage and odd/even decks exist, it makes no sense to talk about any nerfed cards being “too broken” if they were reverted today. SN1P-SN4P warlock is the only deck that you could plausibly argue would still be “(too) broken” in a reverted wild meta, but that card wasn’t nerfed directly, so reverting nerfs wouldn’t even resurrect the deck.
Huh, now that’s interesting. I left a comment on a post about what cards people thought would/should be reverted to their pre-nerf iterations a month ago, and in it, I mentioned the fact that Quest Mage and Darkest Hour are obviously problematic decks. The response I got from the wild experts there in the comments—e.g., that those decks, specifically Quest Mage and Darkest Hour, were so far from broken I must’ve never played the game and what we should’ve really been worried about is “super broken reverted Raza Priest”—is hilarious in retrospect!
Quite a bit of hilarious speculation in the comments here: “Razakus too broken; Leeching Poison too broken!” Baku/Genn exist, and if you actually played wild, it’s immediately obvious that decks like “Razakus priest” would be terrible even with reverted Raza and an updated decklist.
Since they’ve decided to never touch Baku/Genn, there really isn’t a good reason to not revert all of the nerfs that people have said are “too broken!” Naga Sea Witch, Caverns, Barnes, Aviana, Leeching Poison, etc. They should just let wild be, well, wild. How are the following decks any less frustrating/broken/un-fun/whatever in any significant way: quest mage, secret mage, odd paladin, even shaman, mech paladin, (quest) Mecha’thun warlock, or Darkest Hour warlock? It’s pretty silly to think that, e.g., pre-nerf Leeching Poison mill rogue would even be a strong deck in wild right now. How would you beat quest mage? Darkest Hour with a full board and Nerubian(s), or odd paladin’s unfettered and consistent aggression? The same can be said about pre-nerf Aviana SA decks.
In a world where quest mage and odd/even decks exist, it makes no sense to talk about any nerfed cards being “too broken” if they were reverted today. SN1P-SN4P warlock is the only deck that you could plausibly argue would still be “(too) broken” in a reverted wild meta, but that card wasn’t nerfed directly, so reverting nerfs wouldn’t even resurrect the deck.