The deck to compete with Handlocks.

Posts: 695
Made this deck conversion based off a very good handlock deck. After some testing, it works awesome!. http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/64165-hand-sham

Can you think of anything that would improve the synergy while still making it a strong deck to contend with?
Reply Quote
Posts: 40
definately see some potential with it...can you draw the required cards fast enough? seems that might be the only downside vs locks
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,696
It's not enough just to convert the cards in the deck. Whaat you can't convert is the Warlock Hero power, which is where the "Hand" part comes from. As a result, you can't make above-power plays like 4/9 Twilight Drakes or early Mountain Giants.

If a warlock gets stuck with big minions like Mountain Giant or Molten Giant, it can play them early because of the hero power. If you get stuck with a hand full of fatties, you have no way to play them and have to just hero power out a totem each turn, which your opponent will kill off. That prevents you from getting your Sea Giants out unless they flood the board, but if that happens the only way you live is Lightning Storm - Sea Giant, but you might have to wait until turn 9 for that play so you might be dead anyway.

Since the warlock hero power feeds into the Twilight Drakes and Mountain Giants, and then feed into the Molten Giants, and you have no way to simulate that, I'm not sure what else you can do to make up for those shortcomings.
Reply Quote
Posts: 695
@Starscream,
my ohh my, with that kind of thinking I would never win a match. You must play a warlock or mage normally. There is a reason my Hand Sham deck is heavy with spells. As it controls the early game. The odds of that deck getting a handful of biggies is rare. At worst ill get a mix! Besides this deck is seriously winning. I am able to get my Sea Giants out as well. My watchers usually clear whatever removal a opponent has early on.

I will admit card draw is slower than a warlock deck. But then again it would not matter what deck I or you played. A warlock will always have a card advantage as long as it has life. Explaining a handlock deck and its synergy is not gong to help. I as well as most other veteran shaman players already know.

As far as placement of my Sea Giants. I can have it in play on turn 4 if need be. Especially against zoolocks or aggro /totem decks. I also have my watchers which can go full active by turn 3. A turn earlier on average compared to a Warlock. As a earthshock only cost 1, a owl costs two :-) I can run a earthshock and a protector on turn 3 . Warlocks can do no such thing. The difference is my watcher will be taunted as well as be able to attack.

I find your argument not that compelling . As we as shamans use cards completely different than a warlock. If I wanted, I could revert back the Feral Spirits and put back two owls. For 4 x silence in my deck besides hexes. Which makes a watcher in play a promise to be active by turn 3.

The deck runs great even if it is slower than a warlocks hero power.
Edited by xpowderx on 6/17/2014 11:50 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 5,997
Theres little point to activate a watcher on the same turn it goes out - you lose the surprise factor.

Better to let your opponent play a minion, then smash it. They usually presume you will argus it, not silence it.
Reply Quote
Posts: 695
06/18/2014 12:31 AMPosted by FarqTheOrc
Theres little point to activate a watcher on the same turn it goes out - you lose the surprise factor.

Better to let your opponent play a minion, then smash it. They usually presume you will argus it, not silence it.


Watcher comes out on turn 2 bro. Only 2 mana cost. Turn 3 you earthshock then taunt it. Smash the minion or smash the face. Happy with either :-P

Had a cool match earlier. Got both my watchers out before turn 4. Dropped a argus and the mage I was fighting could not contain :-) He capped one, then silenced the other with a owl to remove the taunt. But he unleashed it for me :-) Next turn I dropped ferals and a sunfury :-). Was quite amazing how they all synced together. The mage lost horribly.

Ohh Farq, you like the deck ? Spent some time making and testing it.
Edited by xpowderx on 6/18/2014 2:29 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,328
Have you tried incorporating Injured Blademasters in that deck? They seem to make nice 2nd pair of Watchers, especially since you have two Farseers in your current deck anyway.
Reply Quote
Posts: 24
Hey man this deck is pretty cool thanks for making it. I did my own versions with a few changes and I don't know if its me or my opponents but it doesn't always work but when it does.. boy is it fun. My only problem is playing against priests all the time. They remove the giants so easily you have to play smart and try and bait them, other wise this deck is pretty cool.
Reply Quote
Posts: 695
This is my updated version of the Hand Sham deck. Provides a bit more synergy. As well as providing better chances of early domination :-)

The new Hand Sham: http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/66316-hand-sham-v-2-0-taunt-a-riffic
Edited by xpowderx on 6/24/2014 9:10 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 168
Hey Powder, looks good and I tried it last night and got a few wins... just takes some getting used to the new style of play. Have you considered mixing in an ancestral spirit and faceless manipulator to put some real pressure on opponent? Since they probably wont be expecting an early giant, they wont be able to deal with it. Next turn you put ancestral on it and faceless it and you have two giants with ancestral spirit!
Reply Quote
Posts: 5,997
Powder, nice deck! Would you believe I was planning on making a Hand Priest tonight, so thanks for posting this, Ill definitely copy elements of it.

From playing Watcher Priest, I can say it's nice to have all those taunts. As far as watcher activators go, did you consider Spellbreakers over Owls?

Cheers
Farq
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,620
Interesting, as I have been using Sea Giants in a Shaman deck as an anti-aggro measure, with some success. I would say, in passing that Rockbiter is a closer sub for PO than Flametongue, considering that PO & Faceless are really in Handlock for the 20pt Leeroy finisher. Looks interesting enough to check out.
Reply Quote
Posts: 695
06/24/2014 10:05 AMPosted by FarqTheOrc
Powder, nice deck! Would you believe I was planning on making a Hand Priest tonight, so thanks for posting this, Ill definitely copy elements of it.

From playing Watcher Priest, I can say it's nice to have all those taunts. As far as watcher activators go, did you consider Spellbreakers over Owls?

Cheers
Farq


Hi Farq,
I have not considered Spellbreakers. In this current design I would find them a bit burdening. Owls only 2 mana, Earthshocks only 1 mana. I do see advantage to having a silence with a decent low end middle minion.

It does not fit for this shaman deck. Spellbreaker would do much better in a druid or priest deck. At least that is how I see them.
Reply Quote
Posts: 695
06/24/2014 09:17 AMPosted by Buckeye
Hey Powder, looks good and I tried it last night and got a few wins... just takes some getting used to the new style of play. Have you considered mixing in an ancestral spirit and faceless manipulator to put some real pressure on opponent? Since they probably wont be expecting an early giant, they wont be able to deal with it. Next turn you put ancestral on it and faceless it and you have two giants with ancestral spirit!


I have considered Ancestral Spirit. Just have no idea what to replace it with. The only cards I would consider may be a lightning bolt. But I really do not wish to lose a control card for AS. I am glad you like the deck. It is quite different in play style for a shaman deck.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]