My opponent played Reno, now I need to restart with fewer resources, no tempo spike, no curve advantage.
There is a certain way in which you play around priest, they can do 1 thing at a time so you need to optimize certain spells as mage against them. I suggest Reno Jackson is removed nerfed or made a class restricted legendary to something like druid whose class identity is more in line with what teh card does. I believe by making said adjustments lesser players will no longer get undeserved victories.
leave reno alone
hes a key element in my wild singleton hack the system warrior deck
they never see it coming
leave reno out of ranked, his impact should never matter
well i play ranked with that deck so ⌠pls no?
also whats the point of that card if not played in ranked 
come on buddy cheer up
xoxo
exploiting my only weakness
The card might have been fine when it was unplayable but now itâs a real terror, itâs an âyou have % to win against % of your opponentsâ card the way itâs used by priest and warlock. Mage is uncapable of using it like that and does have other tools that are similar to what Reno does in its isolated case, sadly mage has no other way to heal asides from Jaina
xoxo
0 resources left, a few minions on board, opponent is on 2 health. End turn. WEâRE GONNA BE RICH
Is this not literally âI lost to X, pls nerf Xâ?
2 Likes
Seems like it. Nothing too out of the ordinary.
Well out of the ordinary in chase of him as far as i know
Nothing wrong with a little rant now and then
But leave my man reno alone
I donât see it the same, In the past I had even 90% winrate against reno warlock and still complained a lot about the card. I wrote in the op why I think said card is bad for the game and said changes are good 
In the past I had many posts about decks and cards needing adjustments, Reno happens to be in my top 3 most common subjects, sometimes there wasnât a real impact on the meta or on myself, a few times I asked about good match ups of mine needing a nerf and I even made posts about my favorite decks needing nerfs.
I donât blame you though. People here are divided and each part dismisses and mocks the other, itâs a matter of time until you âshoot and then adress questionsâ
âI had lethal set up for turn 6â
aka: My opponent had a counter for my cards.
1 Like
You imply two things, both are just offending.
First of all you imply that I only care about the subject because I lost to the card, ignoring all my posts.
And secondly you imply that the card is fine, thus negating the whole subject of this post by default.
Disgraceful.
this is a problem I believe. I donât think that Reno can be classified as âfine/not fineâ per se.
iirc you play mostly fast decks. I see why Reno is a problem there. I play mostly control and I donât even care about the card because it is inconsequential for me.
so when discussing Reno I think that there needs to be more context than youâve given.
if you wanna keep that word there, you might wanna edit your opening post.
@Sheercold
I thought you played Open the way gate mage? Reno doesnât do a whole lot against a OTK deck.
I still play Reno Lock so I wouldnât like to see him removed :p. He is a darn powerful card but a lot of the times his effect isnât all that powerful if your opponent still has control of the board.
The worst cases of ânot fineâ is most often âfineâ against certain decks and not fine against the remaining decks, I say Crystal Rogue, Razakus Priest and so on.
About the second part, I just want the truest reaction from a righteous man who does provide help for everyone asking but who also asks people not to use obscene words. I try different ways of challenging people.
I know man, I know⌠
does that mean you donât think itâs necessary to talk about the context of different archetypes when discussing reno?
I think that because of the reputation of those decks it would be beneficial to use them as an example because by highlighting the similarities in gameplay (even though they can be abstract) of those decks people with an opposing point of view to mine can understand mine, I do not want to give multiple far-fetched examples though when I know the people of the forums donât need those to understand this difficult of a subject
I donât fully understand what youâre getting at, but it seems like you think that I meant âmore examplesâ when I said âdiscuss contextâ.
no worries though, I shut up now.
I donât know if this was directed at me or at someone else. This site is pretty bad at showing which post a person responds to, and even if you quote the message the website often just laughs in your face and swallows the quote.
I think itâs directed at me and Iâll respond as such. If not, ignore the rest.
I did not imply that at all. I literally only posted the thread title and then responded to it with how that sounds in my head. Thatâs all.
But now that we are on the subject: your opening post, and some of your later responses, do indeed sound very similar to other posts from people who want to see a card nerfed or removed because they lose to it too often.
âMy opponent played Reno, now I need to restart with fewer resources, no tempo spike, no curve advantage.â
That is literally a description of a game where you apparently overcommitted and then were countered. A single game. That you lost. If your point is not âI lost in a way I consider unfair so it has to be changedâ, then you need to work on your communication skills because that is exactly how your opening post reads.
Followed by a rant on how to play around priest as mage and that the victory for your opponent was, according to you, undeserved. Again, all based on a single matchup. (And, forgive my bluntness, based on what you wrote probably a match that you threw by overcommitting).
And then, in a later post: â
exploiting my only weaknessâ - so you admit that your deck is weak to Reno, that you have not apparently accepted this risk (because else you could change your deck), and that this is why you want it changed.
I did not imply that either.
But you are right, I should have implied it. Or even said it explicitly. Reno is fine.
As someone who plays Reno in some of my decks, hereâs the problem with this card. You can only use one copy of each card. So I have only half the chance to draw my early removals and early threats as compared to other decks. In Reno decks, I far more often find myself not able to deal with the opponentâs early turns.
You also need to draw Reno himself in time. Can be tough especially vs aggro, where I need the card the most. And since my draw engines are also included as one-offs, I do not reliably draw my draw engines either.
For those playing against a Reno deck ⌠when I play Wild, I always track the cards my opponent plays. I keep a close eye on whether I see any duplicates. Why? Because I want to know if they are playing a singleton deck. If they do, I assume that they have Reno. So I will not commit all my resources to the board to set up a lethal if I know that theyâ can heal to 30.
So in the case of the game you lost and described in your opening post: did you track your opponentâs plays to check for duplicated cards?
If yes, then why did you set up a situation that enabled your opponent to make you âneed to restart with fewer resources, no tempo spike, no curve advantageâ?
And if no, then why not?
Reno is a card with a strong effect. Yes. It is also a card with a strong downside. That makes it a balanced card.
Look at https://hsreplay.net/cards/#gameType=RANKED_WILD&sortBy=includedWinrate&text=reno - it shows that at this time (the page shows live updated stats so theyâll change over time) Reno Jackson is used in 19.1% of wild decks (high but not overwhelming), that decks running this card have a win rate of 53.1%, and that even in games where this card is played the win rate is only 58.1% - in other words, it is not an auto-win-when-played card; after playing it you still love over 40% of the time.
Thanks, mate. I like you too.
1 Like