First Player at Significant Disadvantage?

#1 - April 3, 2013, 1:53 a.m.

I've played TCGs for countless years, and it is an accepted fact that, except for certain niche deck types, going second is almost always preferable.

The player who goes first is inherently at a disadvantage in TCGs because they cannot attack, whereas the second player can.

But in Hearthstone, from what I understand (I may be wrong), the first player is at even more of a disadvantage, seeing as how the second player gets an extra card on top of their draw. (Player 1 gets 3 cards + 1 draw, Player 2 gets 4 cards + 1 draw.)

What is the point of giving the player who goes second an even greater advantage than normal? Am I missing something?

Phenteo

#17 - April 3, 2013, 7:45 p.m.

As I've been playing Hearthstone, more and more I can see that the devs really spent a lot of time to balance the game extremely well. Having said that, I've not noticed a difference in my games to where going first or second has an advantage over one another. I've seen many games where both end up winning.

There are cards that have charge which you can attack with right away, as well as attacks that are attached. Take the Elven Archer, for example, I am able to attack right away on the first turn without having to wait, so the disadvantage of not being able to attack right away on the first turn is a non-issue as I was able to attack.

Hope this helps!

Phenteo

#25 - April 3, 2013, 9:17 p.m.

@Galthran, I thought I would prefer the hunter deck over others, but I really like them all!