hearthstone Four Common Hearthstone Mistakes And How To Prevent Them

[Aleco 252]

These four mistakes come up way too often, and they can be easily avoided.

These four mistakes Hearthstone mistakes come up all time on the ladder, but they can be easily avoided by adopting new some heuristics.

Decision trees in Hearthstone grow very tall. Most of these decision trees grow far too tall for us to ever traverse them completely before our turn timer expires, especially if we find ourselves in a situation we've never been in before. For me, that happens just about every game. Practice can help reduce the number of situations we've never been in before, but at some point we'll need to adopt a few heuristics along the way to help us make decisions in a timely manner.

In this guide, I'll walk through a number of very common mistakes I see on the competitive ladder, which to me are obvious examples of poor heuristics at work. My hope is that we can learn some newer, smarter heuristics by asking ourselves why these misplays are so common, and that we can use these new heuristics to avoid similar mistakes in the future. With that said, please keep in mind that it is sometimes correct to make these mistakes, because there are exceptions to every rule in Hearthstone. The goal of this article is to outline examples of bad Hearthstone heuristics so we can replace them with better ones, not to claim that the so-called mistakes I outline below are the wrong thing to do 100% of the time.

With that out of the way, let's begin!

 

Mistake #1 - Missing Hero Powers

 

Example Situation

It's my Aggro Secret Mage opponent's turn 8. I have control of the board and the only hope for my opponent is to burn me out. They cast a Firelands Portal to my face, play The Coin, and Frostbolt my face. On their turn nine they play an Arcanologist, the secret from it, and ping my face with Hero Power, stranding 2 Mana and 1 damage forever.

Why It's A Misplay

The reason to Fireblast over Frostbolt on turn 8 is obvious - you're never going to get that Fireblast back. The Frostbolt will always be there for you on a future turn (with certain exceptions, such as Counterspell), but a Hero Power unused is a Hero Power lost. If you're reasonably sure that the Mana will be there for Frostbolt on a future turn, then playing Frostbolt instead of using your Hero Power is permanently stranding one point damage in a game where every point counts.

This mistake can also come up whenever a player passes on their Hero Power for a 2 or 3 Mana spell which doesn't effect the board, such as a Secret or card draw spell, so long as they would have had the Mana to cast that spell next turn anyways. The Frostbolt over Fireblast play just happens to be the most common of these mistakes, as Aggro Mage is a relatively popular deck in the current ladder environment.

Why do players make this mistake?

My best guess is that it comes down to a misunderstanding of the Hero Power as resource. Just like Mana, cards, and your life total, your Hero Power is a finite resource. The number of times your Hero Power can be used in a given game (excepting cards like Auctionmaster Beardo) is equal to the number of turns you get in that game (minus turn one, I suppose). Each turn your Hero Power goes unused is a tick of that resource you'll never get back.

This view of the Hero Power as a finite resource will do you about as much good as a screen door on a submarine if you're getting beaten down by an aggro deck, where the only thing that matters is playing for board. However, there are a number of decks and matchups where this heuristic is a useful one. A Fatigue Warrior stalling things out in the late game or a top-decking Face Hunter in need of those last few points of damage could be in a position where they need to use their Hero Power every single turn in order to win. Though you probably won't miss out on more than one or two Hero Powers per game due to mistakes like the one I outlined above, those one or two Hero Powers can often prove to be the difference between victory and defeat.

 

Mistake #2 - Playing 1 Drops To Die

 

Example Situation

I'm on Cubelock and I'm going first. I play Kobold Librarian on turn one and pass. My Warlock opponent plays Mistress of Mixtures and passes back.

Why It's A Misplay

Assuming both me and my opponent will Life Tap on turn 2 (which we did), I will end up one card and 4 life ahead of my opponent on this exchange. The Deathrattle trigger on the Mistress of Mixtures will heal me for 4 (2 damage from the Kobold Librarian and the 2 damage from Life Tap) while my opponent is still at 30 life. Meanwhile, the Kobold Librarian drew me a card with its Battlecry. Now we start a new game of Hearthstone on turn 3 where I'm at 30 life, my opponent is at 28, and we have an even number of cards in our hands despite the fact that I went first. Advantage? Me!

Playing the Mistress into the Librarian on a future turn won't yield us better results. For example, if you play the Mistress on turn three you would just end up healing back the 4 points of damage you took from the Librarian's 2 extra attacks, and you'd still be down that card. Playing it later than that would result in an even greater net loss of damage. The move here is to pass the turn.

Another misplay cut from the same cloth as this one would be to play a Grimscale Chum into a Northshire Cleric, a Mage/Rogue/Druid Hero Power, or a Vilefin Inquisitor. In all of these scenarios, what you are signing up for is a situation where an on-board play from your opponent will put you in an unfavorable position. Wouldn't it be better to hold on to the Grimscale Chum until it can be played alongside a Gentle Megasaur, Coldlight Seer, or Rockpool Hunter? It will probably generate more damage over the course of the game if played in combination with those cards.

To be fair, there are a number of games where playing Mistress of Mixtures into Kobold Librarian is the correct move. For example, you might be playing against a Zoolock and be in the unfortunate position of having nothing in your opening hand which can interact with the board until turn 5. In the Cubelock vs. Zoolock matchup, card advantage is far less important than extra damage from the Librarian. We should be able to find a way to win the game eventually so long as we can survive to the part of the game where we play a million Voidlords, so we should make plays that preserve our life total as much as possible. On the ladder you often won't know if your opponent is on Zoolock or Control Warlock if all they've done is play a Kobold Librarian, but the numbers will tell you that its safer to assume Cube or Control than Zoo.

Why do players make this mistake?

Your role in the matchup is key to understanding whether or not you should play to the board (and sometimes into less-than-favorable trades), or to hold onto your minions and play for card advantage. In the Cubelock vs. Cubelock matchup, the game is way more likely to come down to card advantage than chip damage. The Mistress of Mixtures might not seem like an important resource, but it has value as a 2 health minion for Defile clears and is an extra card in hand to cheapen the cost of Mountain Giant. This is to say nothing of how rewarded you get for holding on to that Mistress if you topdeck a Mortal Coil for the Librarian in the next few turns. That said, I don't think the reason I see this misplay so often is because my opponent's don't understand their roles in matchups. I think they happen because players go on auto pilot use bad early game heuristics. Having made this mistake on numerous occasions, I know from firsthand experience how easy it is to fall into the trap of thinking "it's good to play to the board early" or "I should be using all of my Mana", and plop down a 1 drop on turn one without hesitation.

A better way to think about the early game would be to weigh every option available to you. In early game situations such as this one, we are dealing with a very limited number of alternative decisions to playing that Mistress of Mixtures. If we took the time to ask ourselves "what alternatives do I have to playing this minion right now, and are any of them better?",  I think we'd find that the only alternative we have is to not play the Mistress of Mixtures, and that it is in fact the smarter play. 

 

Mistake #3 - Not Respecting Combos

 

Example Situation

I'm playing Combo Dragon Priest, and my empty-handed Dude Paladin opponent draws a Vinecleaver for turn. He has 2 Silver Hand Recruits and a Righteous Protector on board right now, and he can make 3 more Silver Hand Recruits this turn between the Vinecleaver attack and his Hero Power. He has lethal set up next turn if he can draw something like Sunkeeper Tarim, but I have a 4/6 Twilight Drake in play. He attacks my face with everything (the Vinecleaver, Righteous Protector, and 2 Silver Hand Recruits), puts me down to 10, and passes the turn. I proceed to draw a Potion of Madness, play it on the Righteous Protector, heal the Twilight Drake up to 8 health, and cast double Divine Spirit into Inner Fire for the 32 damage OTK.

Why It's A Misplay

If I was the player in the Murloc Paladin's seat, that Potion of Madness topdeck would make think about throwing my laptop out the window. In reality, this was a situation where my opponent was able to play around all but the most ridiculous of combos by attacking the Twilight Drake instead of my face. My 6 health minion was able to become a 32/32 with my Hero Power, two Divine Spirits, and in Inner Fire, but it would have taken me a lot more effort than that to pull off an OTK if my Drake was at 2 health after a Vinecleaver attack. Assuming my opponent was at 30 life, I would have needed to find 4 more points of health for my Twilight Drake through some combination of Power Word: Shields and Kabal Talonpriests to be able to OTK with a 2 health minion. 

I'll let you in on a little secret, Combo Priests always have the combo. Well, not always. But in a number of situations (especially when you're ahead) its a good idea to play as though your opponent's hand and draws are the perfect combination of cards to kill you. If you have a significant lead on board, you're ahead in life, and the only way for your opponent to kill you is with their combo, see if there isn't a way to take away the combo from them if it doesn't change your clock significantly. Many aggro players do a good job of combining their cards in a way which maximizes damage output, but they don't know when to pivot their role in the matchup and become the "control" player, or how to play things safe with a lead.

In the situation I described above, the opportunity cost for my opponent to attack my Twilight Drake was practically nothing. If my opponent attacks my Drake down to 2 health and topdecks a Sunkeeper Tarim, a Level Up, or a Lightfused Stegodon into +3 attack, I'm just as dead from 10 life as I am from 14. The attack to the face doesn't set up any kills with Dire Wolf Alpha or Dark Conviction, so there's practically no downside to attacking my Twilight Drake with Vinecleaver to substantially limit the number of  OTKs I have. There's also an argument for sending a couple of minion attacks at the Twilight Drake to finish it off, as this line would do a much better job of playing around Duskbreaker.

Why do players make this mistake?

Combo Priest OTKs have both won and lost me many, many ladder games. From my experience on the Combo Priest side of the table, I often find myself thinking: "Please don't attack my minion, I have the kill next turn if that minion keeps all of his health!". When I play against Combo Priests, my inner monologue goes a little more like this: "If he has the combo I should clear board and not attack face. Does he have the combo? Nah, I'll attack face. He had it?! What a luck-sack!". Sound familiar to you?

One of the most useful heuristics for navigating combo decks from both sides of the table is the concept of playing to outs. I discuss this concept at length in my Legend in the Making series, but I'll do my best to summarize it here.

In the example game described above, the cards my opponent failed to account for in their decision-making process were the combo pieces I need to kill him (Potion of Madness, 2 Divine Spirit, and an Inner Fire) and the cards he needed to kill me (Sunkeeper Tarim, Level Up, and Lightfused Stegodon). The cards I can kill my opponent with are my outs, and the cards my opponent can kill me with are my opponent's outs.

When it comes down to scenarios where the game is likely to end in the next few turns, try to identify which cards can win the game for you outright if drawn off the top of your deck (your outs), and which cards  would win the game for your opponent between their hand and draws (your opponent's outs). Try to construct a sequence of events out of your opponent which leads to you losing the game, then see what can be done to prevent that happening. Next, try to construct a winning sequence for yourself and see what can be done to maximize the chances it occurs (this is generally much easier and less time consuming than seeing things from your opponent's perspective).

In this particular example, there were a couple of plays my opponent could have made which would have both prevented lethal and set up lethal of their own. These plays are ideal, but there won't always be a perfect intersection between winning and not losing. When considering outs for both you and your opponent, you'll often need to make a judgement call as to whether you should attempt to maximize your own chances of setting up lethal, minimize your opponent's chances of setting up lethal, or go for something in the middle of both to play around a specific card.

 

Mistake #4 - Setting Up Board Clears

 

The Situation

It's turn 4 and I'm on Murloc Paladin against an unknown Warlock. I have a Vilefin Inquisitor and a Hydrologist in play, both with full health, and my hand is looking juicy. I have a Grimscale Chum, a Murloc Warleader, and a Gentle Megasaur. I play Chum into Warleader to set up the huge Megasaur turn, attack everything to face, and pass.

Why It's A Misplay

Playing the Grimscale Chum gave my opponent the 1 Health minion they needed to set up the full clear with Defile. They would have needed Hellfire to clear my board if I hadn't played the Chum, which means that giving them 1 Health minion effectively doubled their chances of being able to clear my board.

Defile is one of the trickiest cards to use in Hearthstone - we shouldn't make it any easier on our opponents than it needs to be. Sure, sometimes they won't have the Defile or the Hellfire and you'll just win with Gentle Megasaur on turn 4, but in this particular scenario, why not hedge your bets and wait on the Chum? They'll still get blown out by Megasaur next turn if they don't have a Hellfire, and if you play into Defile you give your opponent a clean 4 for 1.

Why do players make this mistake?

I tend to make mistakes like this one when I get tunnel-visioned on making value plays and lose sight of the big picture. It just doesn't "feel" right to play our Murloc Warleader before our Grimscale Chum, it leaves value on the table. However, that doesn't mean it's the wrong move. We're very likely to win this game if we don't get our board cleared, and the reward of the Grimscale Chum's Battlecry is far outweighed by the risk of playing it.

I think most players have a natural bias towards big, flashy plays that set up kills as quickly as possible if everything goes right, but that they don't slow down to think about what happens if things go wrong. A heuristic which can help remind us to slow down and consider our options in these scenarios might sound something like this:

The strongest play is not always the best one.

The "best" play for any given situation probably starts and ends by considering the unknown variables - the cards left in your deck, the cards your opponent is likely to play, etc. It's tempting to see the explosive potential in a play that's right in front of you and just go for it, to say "let's see what happens" and accept the consequences if things don't work out. I'd by lying if I said I never played straight into board wipes just to see if I could set up a turn 4 kill, but in a few of this situations it was actually the right move!

There are a number of times where, as an aggro player, the correct move is to just go for it and accept the consequences if your opponent has the board wipe. However, there's a big difference between those situations and the one I outlined above. You won't always be presented with a choice between "going for the win" and "GOING FOR THE WIN!". Whenever you have to opportunity to assemble a board that is capable of winning the game, what do you really stand to gain by putting even more minions on it? Do you get to win more? Last I checked, "big wins" didn't count for extra stars on the ladder.

 

Summary 

 

1. The Hero Power is a finite resource. Use it or lose it forever. Its almost always better to Hero Power than it is to play a 2 or 3 Mana spell if you could just play that spell next turn (or the turn after).
2. The first few turns of the game are really important - don't auto pilot them and throw away cards for free. There are very few options available to you in the early game, so take your time to carefully consider all of them. Playing your minions is not always the best option available to you.
3. When you have a lead as an aggressive deck, it's often a better idea to protect that lead and to become the "control" player than it is to push damage to face. Try to think about late-game situations in terms of specific outs from both you and your opponent, and use those outs to guide where your damage should go.
4. Winning is good enough! Committing more resources to the board than you need to win can set yourself up to get blown out by board wipes.

[VaraTreledees 138]

I disagree with the third one.  Not sure what the math says, but my intuition tells me that the chance you have exactly those 4 cards to kill him are far less likely then the outs he gives up by wasting 4 damage, such as +1/+1 with the stegadon, or +1 attack with the maul if you have a target creeper and no divine spirit, probably some others.  I think it is far more likely that he loses to a duskbreaker draw then a 4 card combo.  If he still had some gas, then by all means, limit your opponents outs, but in top deck mode that tends to be bad. This is also affected by other things, such as number of shadow visions and combo pieces you have played and how you read your opponents hand ofc.

Edited March 16, 2018 by VaraTreledees

[Caldyrvan 377]

47 minutes ago, VaraTreledees said:

I disagree with the third one.

I think both of your opinions are viable and it can be different every game.

Nice one, a lot to read but worth it, thanks @Aleco :) And I have a nice experience from a game today with my Paladin, I'll make it short with less not needed detail but you'll get my point, I guess :)

I was ahead on board as well as having a lot more health than my opponent. Then things changed. My opponent cleared my board and is now having strong minions on the board which could do at least 12 damage next turn. I was thinking: "what's the move?" and after several considerations I chose to attack his face with my Val'anyr (which was already at 1 durability) so he knows I have a Val'any buffed minion in my hand (at least good for the mind games :D) I made a dude with my hero power and passed. On his turn he attacked, as expected, my face then played 3 more minions. On my next turn I played (as planned) Equality + Consecration followed by a Val'any buffed Righteous Protector and making another dude. From that point my opponent was not able to recover. Doing nothing besides hitting his face and making a Silver Hand Boy for one turn and taking the damage he was showing on board won me the game.

Not as detailed as Alecos explanations but you get me, right? ;)

Edited March 16, 2018 by Caldyrvan

[Yridaa 490]

Don't forget to add the opposite of Mistake #3: Trump-trading.

[Caldyrvan 377]

20 minutes ago, Yridaa said:

Trump-trading.

Is that something like wife-sharing just with the US President instead? ... But who wants that? :D

[Yridaa 490]

1 minute ago, Caldyrvan said:

Is that something like wife-sharing just with the US President instead? ... But who wants that? :D

Ah damn, no. I wasn't trying to be edgy or make a political joke. There's a Hearthstone streamer called Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/user/TrumpSC

 

He did a lot of insightful video's such as teachings (Similar to how Aleco does the "What's the move?" vids) and whatever else most hearthstone streamers do. He was adamant on trading for value even if he saw like a two turn lethal and make trades even though he's playing an agro deck for years (Trump is officially the first hearthstone pro actually! (Definitely not the most succesful!)).

 

He made those trades because on paper they were value trades (i.e. sending a 4/6 into a 5/4 so he keeps a 4/1 on the board and the opponent loses the minion) however he started to lose sight of the big picture and it simply ended up with him making value trades and never going face unless there was nothing else to hit. This netted him the "Trump trading" (apparently not as famous as I thought it was!) hearthstone meme where you trade for value even if you're an agro deck and can get a quick lethal.

 

I'm sure someone like @Aleco can explain Trump-trading much better than I did if he's familiar with the concept/Trump. And I was honst about my initial post, I think it deserves a worthy spot in the "mistakes and how to prevent them" list! Especially a big "mistake trap" for those that love value trades (like Trump).

[VaraTreledees 138]

28 minutes ago, Caldyrvan said:

I think both of your opinions are viable and it can be different every game.

My problem isn't with the advice, it is the example.  Playing around your opponents outs when reasonable to do so is always a good decision.  The example, however, I feel was poor.  First off, we don't have enough information to make a truely informed decision based off of what was provided, we don't know how many historians and duskbreakers aleco has played, or how many potions of madness or shadow visions, mass dispell, tar creepers (or how long cards have been sitting in aleco's hand, you can get a read on how many combo pieces priests have sometimes this way) neither do we know what the paladin has left, we don't even know if the protector on the field has divine shield.  This makes the example a general one rather then a specific one, and I think that for a general example saying that an aggressive deck who is running out of steam should give up some of his outs to play around a 4 card combo is categorically wrong, and more to the point perpetuates the single biggest mistake I personally see in Hearthstone, and that is playing to not lose as opposed to playing to win.  Now there are plenty of corner cases in which it was absolutely right to play around the combo but again, we can't tell with the info provided if this is one of them.

[Caldyrvan 377]

5 minutes ago, Yridaa said:

Ah damn, no. I wasn't trying to be edgy or make a political joke. There's a Hearthstone streamer called Trump:

Hahahaha, I was just joking, from the wording it was too tempting for me. Maybe it's just my weird mind :D

@VaraTreledees For me, Alecos words don't feel dogmatic and it's pretty clear that plays/decisions at not always the same. Considering all the variables, possible plays, cards played by you as well as cards played by your opponent, number of cards in hands etc. he could write several pages about a single move or decision. I think he wanted to (if I'm wrong tell me) provide useful insight without writing multiple walls of text, no one wants to read that, getting tired at some point or ignoring the article completely :)

[Aleco 252]

2 minutes ago, Caldyrvan said:

Hahahaha, I was just joking, from the wording it was too tempting for me. Maybe it's just my weird mind :D

@VaraTreledees For me, Alecos words don't feel dogmatic and it's pretty clear that plays/decisions at not always the same. Considering all the variables, possible plays, cards played by you as well as cards played by your opponent, number of cards in hands etc. he could write several pages about a single move or decision. I think he wanted to (if I'm wrong tell me) provide useful insight without writing multiple walls of text, no one wants to read that, getting tired at some point or ignoring the article completely :)

I'm glad someone feels this way! I've been receiving some comments over on reddit as well which imply that I may be saying that all of these decisions are not being made in a vacuum. To be fair to people who feel this way though:

Quote

That is, of course, unless you should be making these mistakes, because there are exceptions to every rule in Hearthstone. But that's beside the point, isn't it? Let's begin.

That's the only real qualifier I write at the beginning of the article to say that nothing I'm saying here are totally hard and fast rules. Perhaps I should expand on this or emphasize this a bit more.

[Bozonik 94]

One mistake I’ve seen quite a bit whilst playing a lot of wild and standard combo-maly druid recently is being so focussed on stopping your opponent win in one way you give them another easier win. You can be sat there digging through your deck for your combo pieces and playing spreading plague to stall when suddenly you find lethal with branching paths attack buff because the opponent didn’t trade into your scarabs.

Sometimes it might be valid play, e.g. a paladin who’s only hope of winning is maintaining as much of their board as they can for buffs the next turn, but often it’s just focusing so much on one thing you forget everything else, e.g. he can’t play his combo while he has those scarabs on board is valid logic... until branching paths is lethal (since its more likely I’ve drawn any remaining branching paths than drawn all the cards required in a 5+ card combo).

It can work in reverse too, missing your branching paths lethal because you’re so focused on staying alive to draw the combo.

[PanPan 19]

Very nice article Aleco.

I did take me down memory lane to some not so perfect games I have played

And Thanks to the rest of you for the detailed criticisem and examples.

What I get out of it is "never autopilot".

What was a fantastic play last game may not be it this game. 

I would expect we all (almost all?) could agree to that. 

[Slam 40]

Mistake #5: (most common for me!!)  playing too fast and missing one of your action:

Worst ever was Patch not being played when he came into play.
Else you also have attacking the wrong minion because the previous one you attacked was killed and the enemy board's reorganized. 

[Bozonik 94]

3 hours ago, Slam said:

Mistake #5: (most common for me!!)  playing too fast and missing one of your action:

Worst ever was Patch not being played when he came into play.
Else you also have attacking the wrong minion because the previous one you attacked was killed and the enemy board's reorganized. 

Haha that change of target when you play while enemy board is reorganising can hurt. I’m more prone to Mistake #6: playing too slow and not leaving enough time for animations to finish my turn correctly.

[shot 0]

On 3/16/2018 at 4:02 PM, VaraTreledees said:

I disagree with the third one.  Not sure what the math says, but my intuition tells me that the chance you have exactly those 4 cards to kill him are far less likely then the outs he gives up by wasting 4 damage, such as +1/+1 with the stegadon, or +1 attack with the maul if you have a target creeper and no divine spirit, probably some others.  I think it is far more likely that he loses to a duskbreaker draw then a 4 card combo.  If he still had some gas, then by all means, limit your opponents outs, but in top deck mode that tends to be bad. This is also affected by other things, such as number of shadow visions and combo pieces you have played and how you read your opponents hand ofc.

u missed the point or didn't read the whole part or it's a bait post. He explains that he has lethal the following turn either way, but chipping the dragon down cuts the opponents chances of winning via the three card combo.

Edited April 11, 2018 by shot

[VaraTreledees 138]

18 hours ago, shot said:

u missed the point or didn't read the whole part or it's a bait post. He explains that he has lethal the following turn either way, but chipping the dragon down cuts the opponents chances of winning via the three card combo.

It isn't his point I am disagreeing with, it is the example.  He needed exactly those 4 cards for the kill, while the paladin was in top deck mode, ie no cards in his hand.  I think it would be far more likely that the paladin loses by running out of steam from a board clear then getting otked to a 4 card combo.  He had outs that he would lose out on by bumping the twilight drake, so it is, in my opinion, correct in this instance to go all face. Now if he had absolutely no outs he losses out on by bumping, it is the correct play.  If he had more cards in hand, it would have been the correct play.