Except the logic breaks down when you use it to kill an explosive sheep. In that case the death rattle is triggered...and damages your minion that we agreed on before hadn't yet been "played"....You're right. Keeper, like all druid choice cards, don't have battlecries. They effectively have spells. So you:
1) Played keeper
2) Chose the 2 damage spell card instead of the silence spell card
3) Killed the scientist and triggered his death rattle
4) THEN Keeper gets played and mirrored because it was played after the secret was played.
Oil Rogue and Handlock both match up extremely well against Patron. Handlock is by far the worst matchup for Patron.So last week we had a good discussion Patron Warrior and how the best way to nerf it would be.
Seeing as how this season, literally, half of my opponents have been Patron Warrior (I've been keeping track), I'm trying to figure out the best class/deck that counters them without being weak to every other deck out there. I'm kind of at a loss. I'm thinking maybe ramp druid since they have lots of big minions (especially with Taunt). But Overall I'm not really sure what the best way to counter them is. They're just such a strong deck. And as has been said, it can be played very poorly and still see really good results.
You screwed up one of your "handlock" there.Gavinmad_sl said:Oil Rogue and Handlock both match up extremely well against Patron. Handlock is by far the worst matchup for Patron.
Oil Rogue and Handlock both match up extremely well against Patron.
These are two separate statements as indicated by the periods. One of those statements does not necessarily build on the other unless you use a function to refer to the previous. This brings clarity to writing.Handlock is by far the worst matchup for Patron.
So what you're sayingThese are two separate statements as indicated by the periods. One of those statements does not necessarily build on the other unless you use a function to refer to the previous. This brings clarity to writing.
Tananthalas is just being a stupid faggot. My statement may not have been perfect English, but what I meant was crystal clear to anyone who isn't a complete retard.Makes sense to me, Handlock and Oil Rogue match up extremely well versus Patron; however of those matchups, Handlock is the worst.
Notice how all of those sentences mean the exact same fucking thing? If you found two other people who didn't understand it, it just proves that you hang out with people who are just as much of fucking idiots as you are.Handlock is by far the worst matchup for Patron.
Handlock is a terrible matchup for Patron.
Handlock is heavily favored against Patron.
Handlock wins most of its matches against Patron.
for American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan DictionaryGavinmad_sl said:Oil Rogue and Handlock both match up extremely well against Patron. Handlock is by far the worst matchup for Patron.
This is how I understood the sentence which is the issue. I was under the impression that Patron benefited from playing against Handlock which is the opposite of what was intended. Which makes the second sentence a direct contradiction of the first.For can be used in the following ways:
1) intended to help or benefit someone/something
a. used for saying who or what is intended to receive something or get the benefit of it
Which is how Gavinmad meant it to be taken. It is my opinion his statement is written poorly. It's also more than likely a difference in how the word is used in our region.8) relating to or concerning someone or something
What is this I don't even. Why the hell did you post a definition of the word for?for American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary
I am paraphrasing as the full definition is too lengthy.
This is how I understood the sentence which is the issue. I was under the impression that Patron benefited from playing against Handlock which is the opposite of what was intended. Which makes the second sentence a direct contradiction of the first.
Having said that the following also applies.
Which is how Gavinmad meant it to be taken. It is my opinion his statement is written poorly. It's also more than likely a difference in how the word is used in our region.
TL;DR: Both are correct, but since this is the Internet I am more correct.
Edited for clarity.