The new sounds in GvG are so adorable and so funny, My favorties consist of HELLOOOO! Special Delivery! HAHAHAH For a little bot, I pack a big punch! The Trumpet that gives taunt which name I can't remember Come close, and listen. Those are just some of the sounds I most enjoy in GvG
Saposhiente High risk high reward. Just need to evaluate if you can afford the risk or if the damaging matters. Hard to say if it was wrong or right. But he won the 50/50 so it worked out.
Morgan Murphy What are you saying? The difference is that 50% of the time, your target (whoever, anybody) is healed, and 50% of the time, it isn't. In the latter case, who would you rather have take 1 damage?
It's kind of annoying how many people don't get that discarding specific cards when not going into fatigue is not bad at all, and annoying how often Trump has to repeat something that obvious. Sure you can say, Fel Reaver is bad because it makes you go into fatigue, that's all a matter of opinion. BUT you can't say it's bad for discarding specific cards when it doesn't go into fatigue. Like saying: "Oh you discarded Jeeves, so bad." The probability to draw a specific card (when not going into fatigue) is exactly the same, no matter if you discard 9 cards or not. As often as you discard Jeeves, just as often it will happen that you only draw Jeeves because of discarding the 9 cards above it. That's probability, and it is a fact, no opinion.
And you can just silence it. Even for 'free' as a priest. Worked once for me. Coin turn 4 Reaver silenced. Bashed poor Warrior in the face for some turns, gg.
HighLanderPony For free? I'd rather lose 9 cards from my deck than one card from my hand, unless I think there's a significant chance of the game going to fatigue, in which case... why are you running Fel Reaver in a control deck?
To describe my thought about Fell Reaver i shall use a recreation of the Warlords of Draenor trailer. Gul'Dan: Play this card Hellscream and you will win the game *offers Hellscream Fell Reaver* Hellscream: And what, Gul'Dan...must I give in return? -.- Gul'Dan: *dramatic face* Everything! *dissenchant sound*
Oh Trump, you have taught me so very much about Hearthstone and the meaning of true value. I would agree with your opinion on 99% of the cards. Fel Reaver is in that 1% I don't. A 5 mana for 8/8 is truly amazing. When you add the drawback onto it, I would actually put it down there with magma rager. There are far too many situations in which you lose at least 9 cards and then it gets destroyed. Against zoo or other super aggro decks you might lose 15 or maybe even 18 cards. So basically no matter how many excuses you make. It's shit, get rid of it. Kind regards, Most of the people who watched this video
I understand the point of the card, I just think it's stupid. The point I'm making is that I think there's quite a lot of scenarios where your deck could lose half the cards. Against something like zoo (I play zoo) where you can make a quite a few cheap taunts, you could throw down a couple of cheap taunts keep the reaver alive a couple of turns and just destroy is whole deck and the reaver. (Also don't hate against me for playing zoo can't help I can't afford to make legendaries to make literally any other good deck)
Losing 9 cards from your deck is irrelevant in a deck like this. Losing 15-18 cards against aggro decks doesn't really matter either - the games are fast enough that you wouldn't be able to play all of those cards anyway and you don't play Fell Reaver in a deck where you absolutely need certain cards to win (like Alexstrasza in Freeze Mage). Fell Reaver is just as likely to get rid of the Fireball you need to win the game as it is to mill the cards above the Fireball.
So lets say you play this when you have 15 cards left in your deck, you then lose the 15 cards and have let's say 4 cards left in your hand. The reaver gets destroyed, you have 4 cards left in your hand, the chances are winning are tiny against a person with some board presence and half a deck. (Unless you have an insane 4 cards left.) Even if the deck's not meant to go to fatigue it can easily be pushed to it.
Im litreally wondering, why so many people here don´t understand why fel reaver is such a good card. It simply does not statisticly affect your draws at all, except if you go into fatigue, which is highly unlikely in an aggro deck. Did this people who don´t like the card never have math in school?
Edin Citaku and in an aggro deck, an 8/8 for 5 with no stickiness isn't good, especially when most non-aggro decks contain a big game hunter for doctor boom, and Fel Reaver is your only BGH target, so forcing them to play it doesn't save anything else in your deck.
Here is a simple way to tell if fel reaver is bad or not: When it's played, did the person who played it hit fatigue? If not, it was a 5 mana 8/8. If so, it was a 5 mana 8/8 that essentially discarded 1 card for however many turns they were in fatigue. That's it, that's all there is to it. The ONLY time fel reaver isn't a 5 mana 8/8 is when you go into fatigue. If you think otherwise, you're wrong.
I don't think that Fel Reaver is bad, but it's strange that no one seems to realise it has a hidden drawback. Your opponent sees which cards you discard. This can make a big difference. For example if I know my opponent is out of hard removal, I can play my late game cards freely. If I know my opponent is out of burn taunts are not as important, etc.
Hey Trump, I just went 12 wins in arena with mage and I wanted to thank you. You have allowed me to learn and enjoy the game as well as make entairtaining videos and streams while doing it. Just wanted to say thanks.
Gosh, all these people complaining about Fel Reaver. Trump never hit fatigue, so the downside was never relevant. As long as you don't hit fatigue, the effect is the same as "put the top three cards of your deck onto the bottom of your deck." Discarding cards from the deck doesn't do anything to the board, yet playing an 8/8 for 5 mana is quite a big swing.
atwitchyferret No, it actually makes no difference at all unless you get to fatigue. If fatigue doesn't come into play, the burning effectively just changes what cards you draw in no objectively bad or good manner. A little counter-intuitive, but true.
Rachel Rogers He lost because the opponent had the perfect answer, not because of any discards. What did he draw the turns after playing Fel Reaver? Clockwork Gnome and Iron Sensei. He would have had the exact same chance of drawing those same cards, or drawing any useful cards, if he had played something instead of Fel Reaver. This is just about understanding statistics. Discarding card X if you play the Reaver has exactly the same chance as simply not drawing X if you don't play Reaver. Unless you reach fatigue. Only if you reach fatigue does the Reaver downside matter, because then you stop drawing cards when you otherwise would have drawn cards. But if the game goes on for that long, the Reaver might have done enogh damage to win you the game anyway.
thomas cunning I wasn't even replying to you? I was talking to the guy that deleted his comment about how a double negative is still negative. Chill out dude damn.
*The Fel Reaver Debate Solved (An Article)* _What Trump and the Majority of the Comment Section Got Wrong_ Disclaimer: This is purely my assessment of thoughts, feel free to add to the discussion by replying. *The Two Cases* 1) Trump argues that the card discards from Fel Reaver have absolutely no impact in the game. 2) Others argue that the burns from Fel Reaver have a negative impact on the game. *Card Advantage* Wikipedia defines card advantage as “a term used in collectible card game strategy to indicate one player having access to more cards than another player, usually by *drawing more cards through in-game effects.* The concept was first described early in the evolution of Magic: The Gathering strategy, where many early decks relied on a player drawing more cards than their opponent…” The key to understand card advantage is the act of specifically *drawing* cards from your deck. The cards you draw are totally random and their order is too. This is why cards such as Azure Drake and Gnomish Inventor are considered good cards. They essentially replace themselves in terms of cards, while still providing a body with good stats on the board. Cards like Thoughtsteal and Arcane Intellect act similarly. They generate card advantage because they replace themselves but add an additional card into your hand. Unlike the previous example, however, they do not provide an additional body. Both cases are still card advantage. If the Azure Drake or Gnomish Inventor manage to trade for 1 or more of the opponent’s cards, such as removal spells or an enemy minion, then the player with the Azure Drake/Gnomish Inventor managed to gain card advantage. It took a card to kill the body, but the card replaced itself. Hence, the Azure Drake/Gnomish Inventor created a favorable 2 for 1 scenario. If the body managed to draw more of the opponent’s cards, then the scenario turns into a 3 for 1, etc. A way to generate card advantage is through overall “value” minions/spells. These are cards that manage to remove 2 or more of the opponent’s cards with the use of just 1 card. Fel Reaver without card text is a “value” minion, because is a 5 mana 8/8, which is spectacular stats, which will can draw out 2 or more of the opponent’s cards, generating card advantage. However, the debate arises over it’s card text: “Whenever your opponent plays a card, discard the top 3 cards of your deck.” *Random Discards* Would you consider discarding cards as having a significant impact in the game, despite absolute randomness? The answer is yes, and no. This is due to Hearthstone's fatigue mechanic, and the fact that Fel Reaver reveals burned cards. Take this scenario as an example. Let's take a card that is usually absolutely crucial to win most games. (i.e. Alexstraza in freeze mage) Alexstraza is a key card in freeze mage, as it sets up lethal for burn spells or restores the health of the mage to the point of stabilization (though the former is more likely). Although illogical (for obvious reasons), let's say the mage runs Fel Reaver in her deck. There will always be a random chance of Fel Reaver burning Alexstraza. The chance of Alexstraza being burned is the same as any other card in the deck. Remember that the deck orientation throughout the game is always random, and there is no way to know what card the players will draw, except for when the card is the last card in the deck. There is always (in fraction form) a 1/x chance (where x is the number of cards left in the mage's deck) of any particular card in the mage's deck being burned. It does not matter how many cards are burned, there is never a higher chance of Alexstaza being burned than any other remaining card in the deck. Because there is always an equal chance of discard, and Alexstraza always assumes a random position the mage's deck,*the probability of Alexstraza being discarded is EQUAL to any other card in the deck, and the probability of Alexstraza never being drawn is EQUAL to any other card in the deck.* Yes, I know. Some may comment “but the mage runs _two_ Ice Blocks and _two_ Fireballs, and _two_ Ice Lances, etc.!” Just because they are two copies of one identical card doesn’t mean that the probability of “two-ofs” vs. “one-ofs” should be excluded. Let’s name the remaining Fireballs in the mage’s deck (assuming that there are 2 left) For simplicity’s sake, their names are “Fireball 1” and “Fireball 2.” The probability of Alexstraza being discarded is still the same as any other card. The rule still applies for identical names of cards. *Probability of Alexstraza discard = probability of Fireball 1 discard = probability of Fireball 2 discard.* In terms of cards (Fireball 1, Fireball 2), there is still an equal discard chance. *However, since there are two copies of Fireball left, the chance of Fireball being discarded is twice as likely as the chance of Alexstraza being discarded.* Therefore, Fel Reaver’s discards have no effect on card advantage whatsoever, under the circumstances that you never hit the point of fatigue. This is because the cards you burn are essentially you never drawing them. *Tracking* Still not convinced? Take the hunter card Tracking for example. “Look at the top three cards of your deck. Draw one and discard the others.” This card is considered good because while it does not generate card advantage, it provides the player with more options. The fact that the two discards are gone may actually be a benefit, because the player may not want to draw those cards in the coming turns. Is tracking bad because you “lose” the two cards? No, because as we discussed before, the odds of discarding the cards is the same as never even drawing them. The exception comes from fatigue. For now, just think of Fel Reaver’s discards as that of tracking, but you have no control over it. In other words, this was just to reaffirm the point that Fel Reaver’s discards DO NOT matter until fatigue. As a side note, at one point I believe Trump had to defend the card Tracking because of its discard “downside.” I find it amusing that he has to employ the same argument again for Fel Reaver. *Where Trump Went Wrong (Slightly), The Value of Information* Trump claims that there is “absolutely” no downside to Fel Reaver’s discard until the player hits fatigue (more on fatigue in the next section). This is wrong. Because the Fel Reaver’s discards are shown to your opponent, he/she knows what cards to play around. He/she knows, for instance, that Gromash Hellscream in no longer in your deck, or that you have no more Eviscerates, or that the secret you just played can’t be Ice Block because you just burned two of them. Information comes at a cost. *Fatigue* Tracking and Fel Reaver have a _potential_ downside, in that they induce fatigue. If fatigue is never reached, then there is no downside to Fel Reaver’s discards except for information. This notion of information can’t be said for Tracking, though, because the discards from Tracking are not revealed to the opponent. If at any point in time, a player cannot draw a card at the start of their turn mainly because of Fel Reaver’s discards, then card advantage is to be taken account. Fel Reaver does not affect card advantage initially because it is on the contingency of fatigue. Because cards in the player’s hand are not affected in until the end of the game, Fel Reaver isn’t strictly a loss in cards. *We can interpret Fel Reaver’s limitation of card draw at the end of the game as a “delayed loss of cards.” Again, this only applies because a player could not draw a card normally. *Final Verdict* *As long as Fel Reaver’s discards do not limit cards drawn because of reaching fatigue (essentially losing a card), it has no downside except for information.* *A Typical Fel Reaver* Let’s take Fel Reaver for what it typically is: “5 mana 8/8, reveal the ⅓ (one-third) of the total cards in your deck to your opponent, and discard the cards.” Would it be a good card, or a bad card? In the case of an aggressive deck in which most games don’t result in the player reaching fatigue, it is 5 mana 8/8, lose deck information. In the case of a control deck in which reaching fatigue is more likely, Fel Reaver is a 5 mana 8/8, take a delayed loss of card advantage dependent on the number of cards you were limited from drawing, lose deck information. *Implications* Don’t run Fel Reaver in a deck which is heavily reliant on drawing a particular card. Don’t run Fel Reaver in a deck in which you do not want to reveal an innovative play style to your opponent. Don’t run Fel Reaver in a heavy control deck, or a control deck in which it is somewhat likely to reach fatigue. Never play Fel Reaver against a Miracle Rogue. *Fel Reaver is best suited for an aggressive deck like Trump’s. :)* In the case of reaching fatigue with a deck like Trump’s anyway, the downside of Fel Reaver’s “delayed loss of card advantage” is even less so than previously discussed. By the time Trump is fatiguing, he probably lost anyway because the game went long enough and he is playing an aggressive deck against a slower deck.
I swear, all Control Warriors have the same starting hand: War Axe into Armoursmith/acolyte into Death's Bite. I say it's far more cancerous than Hunters ever were.
Hey trump. do you think you could go over. What should you disenchant and what not to? Like which legendaries to just absolutely scrap and get the dust for ones played in the current meta
Fel Reaver is Goldshire Footman tier. Idk why people are saying, "if you don't fatigue, its like nothing happened!" Trunp doesn't realize that those cards do something. He lost both of his Jeeves one game. Those cards could've brought him back into the game by filling his hand
Fel Reaver does not mathematically affect your draws as long as you don't reach fatigue. Some games it will burn Jeeves at the top of the deck, other games it will thin out the deck to get to Jeeves. That's simply variance that would affect Trump whether he played the card or not.
How would drawing Jeeves have saved or helped him? Even with Jeeves when he was that far behind on the board against a control warrior that late into the game there is almost no coming back from it even if he had used a 1/4 + draw 3 cards Not to mention the Fel Reaver discards can make you draw the cards you need just as much as they can make you miss them
metromatician The odds are very highly against you. 3 cards is a tenth of a 30 card deck, not to mention by turn 5 it will be closer to 20. Basically, if you dont have Jeeves already, its probably going to be burned. Not to mention there are only 2 of each card, some of which are.important. It just shreds zoo's synergy
"As long as you don't go into fatigue..." sure, but Fel Reaver makes it more LIKELY that you'd go into fatigue. I agree that if you had a 1000 card deck, then burning 30 or even 60 cards would be largely insignificant. but in a 30 card deck, burning half of it or more makes it extremely more likely that you'd fatigue then you would have had otherwise. and THAT is the real misunderstanding people have about fel reaver
Playing Freeze Mage on ladder , opponent hunter has HUGE board. Suddenly, opponent played Fel Reaver! Blizzard+arcane intellect, opponent burns 6 cards next turn, nova+doom burns 6 cards more, suddenly hunter has only two cards left! opponent auto concedes!
hunter has pretty much no way to beat freeze mage whatsoever now that it doesn't run flares. its a free matchup. not really very relevant to gauge fel reaver by that
Fel Reaver would work a lot better if their were more cards like Mana Wraith and Lotheb. Think about it, by making it harder for your opponent to play cards, the Fel Reaver's drawback will have little to no effect.
Master Bearer Well, the whole set of "Fuck with your opponent cards" is: Mana Wraith Weblord The Troggs Lotheb Lorewaker Cho Gallywix Mogor Norzdormu and any secret
Aw, I thought I was being super original by putting Fel Reaver in the Rogue mech deck. But really, with mechwarper its like a Mountain Giant that doesn't require your deck to have no tempo. I'm glad my love of Iron Sensei is being validated, too
So it's turn 10 and I'm playing against a shaman in the arena as a mage. He is winning big time and i'm out of big guys to play. My opponent then plays Fel reaver. I play the three 2-drop minions in my hand and polymorph his reaver. Can you guess who won? Hint: i got a friend request afterwards.
I also played with fel reaver in arena. 1 game I lost because of the mill and 3 games I smashed him because I got insane board controll with it and he could not handle it. I love me some fel reavers in agro decks.
where can i get that mod, he has running in the left of his screen? i think it would be very helpful for a person with a destroyed short time memory like me.
fel reaver could work in combo with silence. Without it, it sucks. Or play 1 on 9 mana and on 10 mana 1 fel reaver with wailing soul. While you have silence in your deck you can use ancient watcher too. Together with argus defender it would make a solid start. just a thought....
Well, a few days ago i got a golden gallywix out of a pack. I made alot of research and didnt find any deck i could afford. I wanted to ask you if you could show us a working gallywix budget deck or even comment a link to one. Thanks for your Attention.
I actually wish more ppl would play Fel Reaver. I enjoy burning them to fatigue with the peacekeeper hard counter, warrior/rogue multi card removal, and mill druid... that one is just sinful feeling
I like this mech deck a lot. However, I didn't like his recent Mage mech deck. I'm not sure why, but the Mage version just didn't feel cohesive and seemed more vulnerable. Clearly they're both aggro decks, with the Mage version having the burn option with spells, but for some reason, this one just seems like more fun, and I find it more entertaining to watch.
To any people out there who think fel reaver is bad because you lose cards: You're silly. As long as you don't go into fatigue, it doesn't matter what cards you lose, because they aren't in your hand, and therefore don't matter as much. That aside, I think more thought should go into Trump's decks. I spend hours on end finding the perfect cards to put into my deck, and I usually have about five or six different versions before narrowing it down. Seeing trump just throw "good cards" into the deck sort of peeves me, but whatever floats his boat. He is a pro, after all.
wait wait wait, unless im missing something, at 23:46 when he used eviscerate on the first ironbeak owl, couldnt he have saved it and had lethal if he used it face? or was it a case of not knowing what the secret was? forgive my grammar, spelling, punctuation, diction, syntax, spelling and repetition; im drunk
Not Visible the warrior didn't make a fool out of him, trump was just sad he got bgh'd the game never went into fatigue so those burned cards meant nothing
Not Visible The destroyed cards had absolutely no effect on that game though. It was the Big Game Hunter that killed him. Think about it this way: The cards being destroyed is essentially exactly the same as if they were just on the bottom of the deck. Since he's playing a fast deck he can count on the game rarely going past turn 10 where he would draw those cards anyway.
There should be a "Give your opponent target minion card"! Think about it! Fell Reaver would be much better, and you might even be able to trick your opponent into the Mistress of Pain- Auchenai Soulpriest combo!
Fel reaver is awesome, though I think it's better in arena than constructed. In arena the cards you burn are often not going to be important but in constructed it might play against the kind of mech combo's that you want to be doing with it. Not sure I would be brave enough to play it myself in constructed.
drop fel reavers for Gazlowe and extra mech / 1 cost spell = way more value. Gazlowe is a legend with a gimped unstable portal mechanic and runs very well in a mech rogue deck.
I've heard all the arguments for fel reaver, but I still don't think it's worth it. People are saying it doesn'tmatter unless you get to fatigue and that nine card discards doesn't matter. The thing is though, if you want to get the crazy value out of fel reaver everybody's talking about it would stay on the board for more than one turn. Meaning the opponent can make you discard more cards. I don't think it matters what kind of deck you're running once you've discarded fifteen cards it's really likely you're going to fatigue. You start with four cards on turn one if you go first and five if you go second, by turn five you'd draw four more cards meaning you have drawn eight or nine. You play fel reaver turn five then the opponent plays two cards and you discard six cards and draw another meaning your deck has used fifteen or sixteen cards. Your opponent's next turn they play two more cards and kill your fel reaver. Your deck has gone through twentythree or twentyfour cards meaning at turn seven you only have six or seven cards left. This is of course assuming you have no card draw which you probably do and assuming the opponent plays four cards and kills your fel reaver in two turns which I think is pretty easily achievable.
If Fel Reaver is on curve perfectly you need seven to eight cards to discard the entire deck. How many times as aggro do you hit turn sixish and your opponent can play seven to eight cards out and you WON'T loose anyways? Like, one in a thousand?
TheMortonator Thew point I'm making is that it's not too outrageous a situation where the fel reaver discards a bunch of cards. Everybody's saying "If the enemy plays two wisps two target dummies and five one cost cards then you lose!" Or whatever. But the fel reaver is going to be around for more than one turn. I do think I can understand what you're saying though. Thinking it over, I'm still not sure, but I'm more open to it now.
orangesilver8 Well, the hope is that it sticks around for more than one turn. If it doesn't it's just a removal target or eaten by minions. If it does it's eight damage for five. Baring your opponent refreshing their hand like with Jeeves or deck thinning I don't think pulling out seven cards is terribly likely. If it lives to hit twice ideally you have won the game. Basically, I see it as a "loose more" card as opposed to a "win more" card. Generally games you loose with it will be lost anyways (In aggro decks without much card draw at least.) while otherwise it will help win the game or do effectively nothing as seen in Trump's game.
A fel reaver on top of a full board is sexy in an aggro deck since your main goal is value for face but once the reaver gets cockblocked your game could be done. Just imagine a doomsayer into frostnova against that
I love the effort people are putting in the comments trying to explain how Fel Reaver is supposedly bad? 8/8 m8 4 effort, but I don't think anyone should care about your comments until you have broken rank 20 at least
The Fel Reaver is an extremely situational card. The only class I can see it having any real success with is the priest since they can silence it on the same turn. Even with that, odds are high that your opponent will have a way to remove it. I haven't watched Trumps twitch stream in awhile but I'm pretty sure he's dumped the card at this point.
I will never run Fel Reaver. I don't care how many times the pros say it's good, I disagree. Maybe that's why I'm not pro, but I just don't think it's a good card.
just watch the video. Burn 9 cards just to get BGH'd before it did anything. Maybe in a warrior since you can give it charge, but that's the only time I would ever even slightly consider it.
***** that makes 0 sense. You can say "well it's like they're at the bottom of your deck" but the fact is they aren't. They were at the top of your deck and you could have used them in the next few turns. and yeah it's great if it sticks around, but there is so much hard removal in the game, chances are better it won't more than it will, now you've just burned 6, 9 even 12 cards you could have won with for no reason. I'm convinced Trump is just trying to make something look good that isn't. Time will tell.
Zer0Hour17 He could have played just any giant in this situation and then he still would have lost. The cards he had to discard didn't change the outcome of the game. And yeah, it says the discarded cards are at the top of your deck, but since you have no way to know which card you will draw it doesn't matter!
