English, please?

Wild Highlander decks are starting to look like that. You can now put up to 5 pay-off cards there, so you get a bunch of them every game.

Yes, they’re still spikes, but not as big given that overall power level of Wild is much higher.

To be honest, I hope that they will be killable on the first run if you have good enough deck and play well enough. It would be bad if it would always take you at least 2-3 runs to get them. But if they are killable on the first, BUT if you don’t manage to do it (like if you’re not playing that well or picking the bad buckets) you still can repeat it and try again. I know that a lot of people had trouble getting past the final bosses in previous iterations of Dungeon Run, so this is a nice middle-ground IMO. It makes things harder for people who are good, but it also makes things winnable (even if after 3-4 tries) for people who aren’t. Even if you just get 50 damage per run, you will STILL be able to beat all the content if you try long enough, which is kind of nice for something that you have to pay for (especially since you get pack rewards only after you finish each chapter).

It’s not really about doing something right of wrong. Rogue’s new Quest is 100% draw-dependent. The only realistic way to finish it on T3 is 2x Clever Disguise, which you get less than 1/4 of time even if you hard mulligan for them. You can do everything right and still not be able to finish it before let’s say Turn 5-6.

You’re basically implying that you’re playing the deck wrong if you don’t draw the perfect cards, which makes no sense, since it’s not up to player.

“Legendary Quest” is just a name for the those unique, one-time / event Quests 🙂 All of them are called Legendary Quests, no matter what they give.

For a very long time, those Quests didn’t have a proper name, so I guess that they just wanted to call them something… and Legendary sounds good I guess?

Yes, you are correct about that. I tried to go a bit more “wild” with the list in the past, made a lot of assumptions and predictions about the cards’ strength in the future etc. And while most of time I was correct, sometimes I wasn’t – it happens, you obviously can’t know how the future metas will look like.

The truth is that maybe only half of people (and that’s a generous estimate) read the disclaimers at the start. Even though they’re there, I’ve got dozens of complaints over the expansions that I recommended X even though it quickly stopped seeing play once the meta changed. Even before the meta change, I had many people saying “why X or Y card is on the list?” and to be honest, I’ve got kind of tired of that. Telling people to read the first part of the guide (which is probably even more important to understand than the list itself) after every single update and explaining why X or Y is on the list wasn’t particularly thrilling. Yes, I could just ignore those, but I’m not someone who ignores complaints or criticism (at least not deliberately, sometimes I just miss it). Since a lot of people complained, something was clearly wrong about that approach.

So that’s why lately I’ve decided to go super safe with those. For the most part, I’ve stopped trying to predict where the meta might go, which cards might be good and just focus on the cards that are solid right now and simply safe. And I think that this kind of approach works better for this kind of list, simply because most of those who really need it are either new players or F2P players that are low on Dust and can’t afford to experiment.

Another side effect of this is that I’m taking more time to update the list. Before I would slap it very quickly and make a lot of assumptions (again, mostly correct, but not always). Right now I’m trying to wait for the meta to stabilize before updating it. That’s why in this case I waited for nearly a month after the set – because right after the initial meta really stabilized they already announced a nerf patch. I had a new list almost ready to publish, but didn’t want to do it since the new patch was coming and I didn’t know how it will affect everything yet.

I’m not sure whether it’s the correct approach or not, but that’s what I’m doing for now. Maybe I’ll go back to the old ways in the future, who knows 🙂

Yep 🙂

Regular Classic pack for playing it + the Legendary Quest you got for 1 Uldum pack. No other rewards.

Yes, the deck’s basic game plan is simple, but there are a lot of decisions which can lead to losing or winning the game. Trust me, it’s really more nuanced than it seems a lot of time.

The stats I’ve shown have Quest Shaman as a good matchup (63%). Maybe if you face builds that tech against Combo Priest than it’s a different story, but I’ve never seen a Quest Shaman with Hex (Earth Shocks are also rather uncommon, but I see them from time to time). You’re right that Hunters are Priest’s worst matchup and they are more common in around Rank 10. But besides Hunters, Warriors are the only bad matchup for the deck, and I wouldn’t even call it terrible – ~45/55 matchup is far from unwinnable. Stats indicate that Combo Priest is a Tier 1 deck no matter what rank you play it at, and it includes Ranks around 10. Sorry to hear that your personal experience with the deck wasn’t that great, but you might take a 60% win rate deck and then go on a 10 games losing streak with it. That’s Hearthstone for you.

I usually use stats from R10 to Legend, because I feel like those ranks are good enough to produce meaningful data (unlike R20, let’s say), but they apply to a bigger part of the readers than just R5-Legend or Legend alone. But on top of stats, I base those on my own experience (usually in R4-Legend), as well as reading thoughts of pro players / streamers and talking with some (and they basically play exclusively in Legend). I can note that in the post.

I think it’s a great deck, might not be #1 right now, but it was really hard to tell so early after the nerf patch. I’ll update the list once again ~2 weeks or so from now when the meta is figured out 🙂

Name me one meta deck that this is favored against.

Stats for Combo Priest, from last 7 days, Rank 10-Legend: https://i.imgur.com/oMFgPF6.png

Also, for all the hype this deck is getting, it seems that Noone is playing. All priests I come across are quest decks.

https://i.imgur.com/HwMobgB.png

at least around rank 10 in the EU ladder

Maybe that’s the answer to your question. The deck is more difficult to play than it might seem. And I didn’t build this tier list around Rank 10.

Not sure where you got 17 from. It’s 15 + 1, for 16 in total.

3 packs from each chapter + 1 golden. 3 * 5 + 1 = 16.

Definitely not – regular version is much better than Malygos build! Malygos one is more fun in my opinion, but that’s another story :p

And it’s not under the Witchwood category 🙂 It’s a part of the Tess’ description, it just happened to start a new line.

Thanks for the link, you’re right! I’ll add them to this post shortly 🙂

Thanks for pointing it out, I must have missed it!

You can! It will cost the usual 700g per chapter.

Legendary Crafting Guide was just updated for the Saviors of Uldum Post-nerf. Comments below this one might be outdated.

Apologizes about the delay, but the nerf patch came out right after we were ready to post the first Uldum update, so it became obsolete immediately 🙁

Let me know if you spot any mistakes!

I didn’t think about it as a different archetype, just a subset of Zoo Warlock. It has the same playstyle, shares basically the same card pool etc. But in general, it reports lower win rates than normal Zoo. We’ll see, I’ll consider making it a separate entity with the next update (if it will be good enough, that is).

I understand your position – it’s hard to build a variety of meta decks when you’re a relatively new player (unless you spend A LOT of money, of course). I’ve been playing since Closed Beta, I buy pre-order every expansion and I sometimes still wouldn’t have Dust to craft off-meta / fun decks so I mostly focus on the meta stuff (that’s what I need to play for the most part anyway). But playing only a single deck will always skew your perspective of the meta. For example, Quest Paladin has a very good matchup vs Control Warrior, it would probably be #1 if we judged it that way. But if we look at the deck in general, its strengths, weakness, matchups etc. it’s only okay – somewhere in Tier 2.

I mean, here’s the thing about decks like Quest Warlock. They are bad meta decks, hovering around 40-45% win rate (whereas the best meta decks have 50%+), so it’s hard to climb ladder with them, but you sometimes face them, because they’re still fun to play. And if you get good enough, you might even climb to Legend with them – but the amount of effort necessary to do it will be WAY higher than if you would be playing a viable, meta deck. So as long as you open the necessary cards and don’t have to craft them specifically for that deck, I would recommend playing around with it. But if you need to spend thousands of Dust to finish a “bad” deck like that, I don’t think it’s worth it, especially if you’re a new player and try to play somewhat competitively (care about your rank).

Here’s the list of budget decks with guides: https://www.hearthstonetopdecks.com/hearthstone-budget-cheap-decks/ The only expensive card they use is SN1P-SN4P, because he was given out for free not that long ago, but there’s also a replacement for him at the bottom of every guide in case you don’t own him. Of course they are not the best given the restrictions (no Epics & Legends), but I believe that it’s possible to climb with them – R5 should be easily achievable with some, Legend would be harder, but also possible after some upgrades.