Zack
99% hot gas
I mean, if there are a significant number of cards you haven't seen, you're probably not very good (due to inexperience).
Deck composition is still fairly relevant, and being able to recognize if and how your deck can substantially respond to the problems posed by other decks is a skill factor. Card quality is a genuine reason for one arena deck to lose to another, especially as prior wins weed out less-skilled play (although the mage's status as a lightning rod for rage is excessive).Hunter has had periods of absolute dominance using a deck that was pretty cheap. Zoo (also cheap) has been a very strong deck for a long time. Shaman midrange decks generally aren't too expensive. Skill is a lot more important than having legendaries. "I lost because the other person has better cards" is more of an excuse than anything. Trump and others have hit legend with several classes using free-to-play decks.
It can definitely be a factor, but it's not as important as skill. Blaming losses on lack of rares/epics/legendaries hinders you from realizing mistakes and misplays you made due to lack of skill. It takes time to get good at the game.
On the flip side, having good cards doesn't mean you'll automatically start having success. You can play a fully fleshed-out control warrior deck and still be terrible.
Um, yeah? I never said anything to the contrary. I even pointed out in the very first sentences that you can make a competitive deck even with a small collection.Deck composition is still fairly relevant, and being able to recognize if and how your deck can substantially respond to the problems posed by other decks is a skill factor. Card quality is a genuine reason for one arena deck to lose to another, especially as prior wins weed out less-skilled play (although the mage's status as a lightning rod for rage is excessive).
having good cards is not the same thing as having a good deckI thought you were overemphasizing the "opponent has good cards is just an excuse" sections of that post. Sometimes that's exactly what happens.
YOU FACE JARAXXUS, EREDAR LORD OF THE BURNING LEGION!I was watching my roommate play yesterday and his opponent was down to a couple health.. and then he played a card where his hero was replaced with another hero.. a new class. Some devil type looking guy.. With a 2 mana "create 6/6 minion" hero power.
So.. .. overpowered..
It's cards like that that ruin the game for me.
YOU FACE JARAXXUS, EREDAR LORD OF THE BURNING LEGION!
Is that card overpowered? No. It is the Warlock class legendary - and not even all that great when compared to other ones.
Jaraxxus does very little the turn he is played. His high mana cost means that the vast majority of the time playing him is the only thing you do that turn, and also that he can be a dead card clogging up your hand. These all combine to make Jaraxxus a very slow card that is basically unplayable in an aggro meta. Additionally, he makes it nearly impossible to play molten giants, which are a staple of any deck which would run Jaraxxus.
It's a situational card than can be powerful, but often is useless. As someone who has played a handlock deck with Jaraxxus, for every game he has a huge effect like warpus described, there are ten games where he's not very useful.