I’ve tried, and it feels a bit underwhelming. If you go for a more Midrange build, it doesn’t have enough ways to swing the tempo, the Dragons are mostly too slow. And if you play the Control variant, Odd version just seem better. And both Odd & regular Control Dragon Warrior share a similar problem – they’re too fair. They don’t have any infinite value win condition (like Deathstalker Rexxar / Frost Lich Jaina) or powerful combos (Shudderwock Shaman, even Control Priest). I mean, there’s Boom, which is nice, but it’s too random. For the sake of value, you want the Discover Hero Power and it happens only 1/5 of the time.

I’d say that those decks have a higher chance to work after the rotation, when a lot of those crazy win conditions other slow decks have will rotate out.

You’re right, fixed that. Thanks!

You’re right, fixed that. Thanks!

Of course, I had to remove it for some reason… It’s there again with the latest update. Thanks!

Your quote is from the section about Aggro matchups, so what does Control have to do with anything?

You’re right, it’s definitely a consideration. I’m talking about Tracking issue in the guide, but the thing is that the card is just so good that it’s difficult to justify dropping it.

HOWEVER, given that Hunters are very popular right now, teching in Flare instead might actually be a good thing. It still cycles, and it’s good in the mirror. If you drop your Zul’jin after their Zul’jin, clearing all of their Secrets is amazing.

Thank you! 🙂

Thanks for explaining, but I do know the difference between the words “good” and “well”. In your example, “good” refers to the noun (Warrior) and “well” refers to the verb (“doing”). However that still doesn’t explain it to me. The word “well” can also be used as an adjective in certain cases. I’m copying a passage from the Cambridge Dictionary (source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/discourse-markers/well)

“Well as an adjective

We use well as an adjective, normally after a linking verb such as be, look or get, to mean ‘in good health’:

A: How are you?

B: I’m very well, thanks. And you?

Are you feeling OK? You don’t look very well.

In American English, it is common to use good instead of well in this context. This is less common in British English:

A: And how’s your mother?

B: She’s good. Thanks for asking.”

I’ve been taught (and more than taught, heard it hundreds of times) that you can use “well” as an adjective, in the context of “in good health” or “in good state”. Like you can say that someone “is looking well”, as in “is looking healthy”, “is looking to be in a good state/condition”, that’s why I’ve used it here.

So, given that, what’s wrong with the word well in that context? I see that “good” would probably fit better, since “well” is mostly used to describe someone’s HEALTH and so. You COULD stretch it out here probably, but “good” is safer. That said, I think it still makes sense and is grammatically correct (or maybe I’m missing something important and making a fool of myself now).

Thanks for pointing those out.

I’ve fixed Boomsday Project right away, you had to catch up a very early version right after it came online.

As for the second one, what’s wrong about that? “new version of Odd Warrior has popped out and it’s looking quite well so far”, meaning that the archetype is in a good state. Maybe quite good would it better, but isn’t saying quite well correct? Obviously, I’m not a native speaker, but it sounds fine to me.

You can also Boomship + Shield Slam your Hakkar if you think that opponent might be holding Silence or Transform effects.

The second Florist was meant to be a Ferocious Howl, but I’ve made a mistake when building the deck on our site. Sorry for that 🙁

Raven Familiar, should be good enough just to play around with the deck. But if you want to get more competitive, you would need to make other changes. E.g. Chain Gang is no longer that good without Keleseth, but on the other hand, you can run Voodoo Doll (you can’t with Keleseth, because you want to ping it and you can’t ping it if you make it a 2/2). So you would need to make a few adjustments in total – Keleseth is always impossible to replace 1:1, as he affects most of the deck.

You’re right, it disappeared from some reason (I was sure that it was there when I was building the deck). I’ve added it again, thanks for noticing!

I feel like Tending Tauren is better in this deck. It adds a T6 play that’s other than Plague (because you don’t always want to, or even can, Plague on curve). And in the late game, you already have a lot of different plays you can make, like start comboing Wispering Woods with Soul of the Forest, or Treants (like Landscaping / Force of Nature) with Treespeaker.

But if you want, you can test out Cenarius instead of Tauren.

Hard to say, I feel like Tauren is more flexible than Mulchmuncher. But I will need to play around with it and see how quickly can you get Mulchmuncher to just a few mana points (or even better, to 0 mana) assuming you also play Treespeaker.

I’ve already played with Mulchmuncher in Boomsday Project and it was actually more difficult to get down to 0 mana than I’ve initially expected, and the deck wasn’t even running Treespeaker (obviously).

You only appreciate the extra health if Aggro deck actually got you so low that they would otherwise kill you. You see, Health is also a resource, but much different than other resources. You can spend it freely until you’re dead – then you lost the game. If you play a certain matchup, and you end up at 10 health after tapping 4 times playing Odd version, it means that Odd version didn’t save you – you would get the same result when playing non-Odd version.

One could argue that it’s the same thing for Warrior Hero Power, yet Odd Warrior is good. But that’s different. Warrior is an interesting case, because Armor has an extra value on top of just being health – synergies with Shield Slam and Reckless Flurry, both of which are quite important. Plus, the Hero Power is not tied to card draw. As a Warlock, you can only tap as much in slow matchups without running into a risk of dying to fatigue before you can finish the game. In Warrior, you can Hero Power as much as you can, so the value of +2 health per Hero Power is way, way higher in the long run (not to mention that going above 30 is also valuable when we’re talking about combos and fatigue matchups).

Talking about combo matchups – sure, not taking any damage from Hero Power is good, but most of the combos are prepared for dealing 20++ damage or just OTK the opponent right away (like Mecha’thun decks). You can’t actively go above 30 health with his Hero Power, unlike Warrior’s, which means that let’s say Malygos Druid can still combo you. Yes, his job might be a bit more difficult (assuming the best case scenario)

Not taking damage also has diminishing value when it comes to Bloodreaver Gul’dan. If you transform quite quickly, in most of the longer games you actually get back to 30 anyway, so in those games being Odd also wouldn’t matter whatsoever.

Of course, if you COULD build an Odd Warlock deck without having to sacrifice anything major, you would do that, because most of the time you prefer not taking damage over taking it. But trust me, the upgraded Warlock’s Hero Power is not that good at all. If you compare regular to upgraded one, Warlock’s upgrade is like a significantly worse version of Warrior’s upgrade. I’ve experimented with all of the upgraded Hero Powers, both when Justicar Trueheart first came out and more recently after Baku the Mooneater was released, and Warlock’s is probably the worst one to upgrade (even Shaman’s worked better, even though it mostly just makes the HP more consistent).

I still think that Warlock is one of the worst Hero Powers to upgrade. The thing is, taking no damage from your Hero Power is only really relevant in Aggro matchups (and maybe some Combo matchups), and not always. While it heavily depends on the meta, I’d say that upgraded Hero Power is useless in probably over 50% of your games on average, unlike the better upgraded Hero Powers, which matter in every single game.

You CAN do it just for the sake of doing it (or having fun, for that matter), but I just don’t see much sense behind it.

Oh, I am more than okay, I just got married 🙂

And thank you!

I guess, the best Midrange Hunter build might be the one dropping Master’s Call completely and forgetting the “Only Beasts” stuff after all. You’re right that the consistency drops heavily, I didn’t bother to calculate the exact chances, but my guess was around 30% with only Beastmaster, so adding Houndmaster INSTEAD of one of the Beasts would definitely bump that above 40%, maybe even close to 50%.

But since this was a Beast Hunter theorycraft, I didn’t want to add a regular Midrange Hunter build. I might do another theorycraft for it, though.

They won’t, sadly (or luckily, because it would be a pretty degenerate combo). Halazzi adds cards to your hand, Untamed Beastmaster works only on cards you draw from your deck.