Hearthstone: Trump Reavers On (Rogue Constructed)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ค. 2024
- Trump: Fel Reaver isn't bad.
Twitch Chat: $%"$§
→ value games: www.g2a.com/trump
Ranked Play Season 9
····················································································
00:00 - Shaman
03:57 - GvG Paladin
10:07 - Fel Mirror
14:19 - Druid
20:00 - Hunter
23:47 - Mage
····················································································
● More constructed: bit.ly/1ovASMi
● Trump's Decks: bit.ly/TrumpDecks
····················································································
♥ Subscribe: bit.ly/ValueTown
♥ Twitch: / trumpsc
♥ Facebook: / trumpsc
♥ Twitter: / trumpsc
····················································································
♪ Outro music from the Hearthstone soundtrack
"One Last Chance" - เกม
![อาจารย์ยอด : พระเตะผี [ผี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zusDOIFasaE/mqdefault.jpg)
27:10 "That's a two for one" *entire deck burning in the background*
You have to consider that 'two for one' is in reference to the cards the players have in hand and access to, not in general. 'Card advantage' is not amount of cards in deck, it is the amount of choice in hand. Fel Reaver does not affect the amount of cards you will ever have in hand, unless it leads into fatigue.
*****
You have to consider that just because you call it a "two for one" doesn't change the fact that your creature still just discarded 10+ cards of your deck that could have changed the outcome of the game.
"Just imagine that the sun doesn't exist." That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Its still going to be there. Just like how that "2 for 1" was actually more of a 2 for 14.
A1phaz0ne
Just imagine feal reaver doesn't destroy the cards but moves them from the top to the bottom of the deck. Fel reaver has no downside any more, right? It just shuffled Trump's deck.
In every game that doesn't last until fatique, destroying the cards and moving them to the bottom has exactly the same outcome. How is moving 12 cards from the top to the bottom of the deck a 2 for 14?
But does it matter that he discarded cards? Most games dont go into fatigue anyway.. Therefore it doesnt matter that the cards are getting burnt. A control warrior or Handlock wouldn't run fel reaver because they do go into fatigue sometimes but a aggro/tempo deck doesnt go into fatigue.
A1phaz0ne In any game with a given aggro deck, you are only going to draw 15 cards or so. The other 15 are literally worthless. They cannot change the outcome of the game because you will never draw them. It is a misunderstanding of how card advantage works to equate discards from your deck with cards in hand, and a misunderstanding of how probability works to worry at all about which particular card was discarded vs which cards are at the bottom of the deck and will never be used.
What if Fel Reaver didn't show you the cards it discarded? In that case, it would have LITERALLY no effect on the game state unless you hit fatigue. As it is, all it does is show you the cards you weren't going to draw that game, and let you alter your play to compensate.
I don't even necessarily think that Fel Reaver is a bad card, but Trump is just in hardcore denial about how good it is, especially during that Pally game. There's no way you can convince me that a 1/8 for 5 mana that basically reads "at the end of your turn, mill 3-9 cards" is worth it, ever.
Its like Nerubian Egg all over again. I can see why Trump fell in love with the card, but it turns out to be much less practical to play than theory would suggest. It removes those one or two extra turns that aggro decks sometimes need to pull out a victory before the opponent stabilises. If Hearthstone decks were 40 cards then FR would be a lot better.
I am pretty sure that was a joke. Peacekeeper is possibly the worst thing that could happen to the reaver.
He wasn´t saying that a 1/8 Fel Reaver would good, he said that he´d rather have that 1/8 out there than nothing at all, despite the discards.
Niki Herl I know, and I'm saying he's wrong, because now he's pretty much guaranteed to get his deck milled since the opponent has no incentive to kill it and all it's good for is squashing silver hand recruits.
thing is, no matter what, if you didn't go into fatigue it was worth it, I mean 5 mana for a 1/8 isn't worth it obviously, I mean just generally an 8/8 for 5 is always worth it if the game doesn't go into fatigue for you.
5 mana 8/8 just doesn't do enough, by turn five the opponent will usually have easy removal (Shadow word death, hex, aldor peacekeeper, siphon soul, execute + 1 damage, sabotage/assaninate/minion with cold blood)
Besides if you want cheap 8/8 mop unions play hand lock
Also, the Fel Reaper lost him the game against the Paladin.
The thing is that in theory it puts a lot of pressure on the opponent, one face hit from Fel reaver probably wins you the game. But the risk is maybe too big. You spend your entire turn playing a minion that's very likely to get removed. If it does, you'll loose so much tempo your aggro deck cant recover.
***** Missplay lost him the game versus paladin-
***** In the paladin game, fel reaver lost him one card draw at the very end of the game. There was no single card that would have allowed Trump to win that game.
***** Yes because aldor. Against aldor and humility of course it's bad. Very bad in fact. The only argument against reaver is on the popularity of BGH and humility and aldor since in those cases you've given your opponent a good target where there wouldn't be one.
"Probably the most annoying thing about playing Fel Reaver is hearing the really bad arguments about why Fel Reaver is bad"
-Trump
Seriously, you don't know what you guys are talking about. If you think about how he burned the taunt or something that could help him, you aren't thinking mathematically, or logically. Those could easily have been on the bottom of his deck and the exact same results would have ensued. They could have been that 4th card that he draws into next. It's basically just re-shuffling the deck. If you ever get to late-late game, into the fatigue state, you would have lost with the deck anyway. It's not even remotely designed to deal with that part of the game.
It's not a complicated idea. The problem I see with the card is that the Reaver often forces you to build a bad deck around it. It's essentially limiting you to half your deck to have the quite rare free win.
Why not just get rid of it, and perhaps a few cards supplementing it, and just play a more consistent deck that lessens variance? It's fun, no doubt, but it's not going to get anyone to Blizzcon.
On the off chance it does, I'll be impressed.
Also the main point a lot of people miss is that this deck does not rely on certain cards. Like in Zoo, if you discard Doomguard or (in previous versions of the deck) Leroy, you were seriously out of luck. There is next to no single card that Trump can discard that ruins the deck. It's just a basic rush deck
ginjaninja114 That still doesn't matter. Even in zoo (with warlock and their draw power) it was absurdly rare to get very close to fatigue. Burning a doomguard or leeroy is equivalent to them just being on the bottom of your deck. Also, trump even said in the video that it might actually get you 3 draws closer to a card you'd need. Reaver is a potential pick in any deck that doesn't plan on drawing a majority of their cards. Obviously a deck like control warrior/handlock/freeze mage would never touch it, but those are because they count on strong card draw to keep control with their low-cost removal spells while playing big minions/spells.
sc065 My problem with it isn't necessarily that you're forced to build a deck around it (Though that's a huge problem I personally have with it), but more that it presents an alternate win condition to your opponent. It's not that hard to manage an 8/8 in the early game, in fact, the meta is sort of designed around it at this point, so suddenly you give your opponent the chance to mill you out.
alwayzbored114 Let me put in this way. I'm in the second year of engineer ( a lot of math ), and all my friends agree. The chance of getting a card with or without self mill is the same, unless you fatigate. The only bad thing about fel reaver is if you ever run out of cards. And this is really rare in rush or midgame decks.
Trump If your opponent can't deal with it, Fel Reaver is awesome, but if your opponent can deal with it, then Fel Reaver is one of the worst cards in the game, discards you like 9 cards without even trading once (BGH op)
i am just gonna point out that the dude in the first game 'wasted' 3 cards to kill the Fel Reaver and Trump wasted 6 cards without the Fel Reaver. I see almost no upside to Fel River unless your oponent is an idiot.
Fel reaver is bad when you get fatigued. In other cases just emagine those cards were in the end of deck.
Im pretty sure that trump doesn't read these comments
Mirza Ajanovic I never said he does.
Fel Reaver discards are pretty much irrelevant in Aggro Decks though?
The discards do matter. The only fallacy is your own. You made the statement "He had to use a frostbolt and a fireball to kill my Fel Reaver; that's a 2 for 1". No. No it was not. You discarded 12 cards in the process. Despite your illogical reasoning, that was a 2 for 13. Whether the cards are played or discarded, they are still traded. You have such a high probability to discard the specific cards you need to win for that particular game. Congratulations, you just played a 8/8 minion for 5 mana, too bad your opponent has 5-6 mana to deal with it; which is more than enough in most classes. With your reasoning, who cares how many cards you waste to kill a minion, trade imbalances are no longer relevant. That card is the exact opposite of "value", with so many hard counters.
Wat. In most situations you're going not going to reach the end of your deck so your argument is total nonsense.
Try this experiment. Play one Fel Reaver. Play it when you can. Ignore the discards entirely, hell close your eyes for the entire discard portion if you want, then continue playing as usual. Did it disrupt your gameplay? If you entered fatigue it did, but this happens very infrequently.
A card that is never drawn is basically not even in the game at all, as is a card that is discarded. In fact a card that is discarded is actually SUPERIOR, since it thins your deck and lets you know the increased likelihood of drawing specific cards.
If you finish a game whilst drawing half of your deck (15 cards), then if you could have played a card earlier that said "dispose of half your deck to gain a huge board advantage" then playing that card is obviously good.
By turn 5, how many cards would you normally play? probably around 5, yes? How many cards will you have in your hand? Again, probably around 5 as well. For the Reaver to be relevant, he has to be around for at least two of the opponents turns. This means that the opponent has 11-13 mana worth of cards he can play, equaling to around 3-5 cards being played. This means you are going to be losing around 9-15 cards of your deck, being around half of your deck at this point. With the average of 5 cards already being played, and your Reaver most likely dealt with by the opponent (regardless of how many cards he used) this gives you around 5 cards left to draw in your deck. Even if you manage to get one 8 damage shot to his face, the burn does not equate the cost; especially when the heavy hitter in your deck is the Reaver itself.
It is 12 for 2, in the long run when you expect to play out all your cards. It would really hurt a control deck (that plans to play most of it's cards)... but an aggro deck plans to win the game quickly, so they won't need the rest of the cards in their deck.
The one problem with fel reaver is that it's a slow tempo play. It takes a turn to get ready (to do anything) and costs a lot of manna (5) for an aggro deck. It's slowness is similar to the Sea Giant. Both can be good minions for relatively cheap. But your opponent is always saving his removal for things better than your little guys, so they very rarely have a turn to attack.
The primary difference between doomguard and fel reaver or sea giant. Is that Doomguard has charge, he'll almost always do 5 damage.
Mmmm no. Fel reaver is designed for fast face decks. Fel reaver only has a downside if you hit fatigue. If you hit fatigue with a deck designed to play Fel Reaver, you were doomed from the start, Fel reaver or no.
If that one draw Fel reaver denied you when you hit fatigue was going to save you, then it doesn't matter because you would have lost the game even faster had you not played a 5 mana 8/8.
Lol at you idiots actually thumbing this up. It doesn't matter because the cards you discard aren't in your hand and would never be in your hand before the game is decided. If you design an aggro deck that isn't meant to win by turn 7-8, you're doing it wrong.
Fel Reaver needs to be in a hyper aggressive deck. Trump is still too concerned with solid board control and efficient trades. If your going to use Fel Reaver, you need those hyper aggressive cards. I'm sure he's figured that out and is changing his deck.
Yeah I agree. It basically needs to be in a deck where discarding that many cards never has any consequences, which is the case when you play hyper aggro, as most games go turn 7/8 maximum.
klte1 Indeed. I think Trump was trying for that, but got caught up with making an aggro mech deck rather than a hyper aggro one. Mechs can be fast, but not fast enough to be considered hyper aggro. Well, at least this one wasn't
You're the only one that I've seen to have come up with an actual, logical defense for Fel Reaver instead of the bullshit " pretend you were never going to draw those cards" argument.
You very well may have a point. It isn't exactly top classified knowledge that Trump isn't an aggressive player. He naturally and quite passively gravitates to the safer board control style of play. The only times he was aggressive was when that woman ( I forget her name) was with him for arena runs and told him to go for face.
If it was in hyper aggressive decks that actually played aggressively instead of just board control. Then I can see that this card could actually be decent. The game will end before the discards make a difference.
But the way Trump plays, Fel Reaver is literally among the worst cards for a player like himself to use and due to that, makes Fel Reaver look like a terrible card itself.
A1phaz0ne Her name is Hafu btw ;)
I feel like fellreaver shouldn't show your opponent the cards it throws away, that seems like such a draw back to me, oh, he just throw away jarraxus, or some such card, they can now not worry about him coming back to 15, and many other similar things like that, mostly dealing with AOE, that part just sucks to me.
In a deck where you run fel reaver, there wouldn't be any one card that is important to securing your victory like Jaraxxus. Also if the game went 9 turns, such a deck would fail anyways.
Thomas Shepard
It was just one example, you are thinking into that part of the comment too much, and not getting the point, it means the opponent doesn't have to play around things, because they saw what was discarded, I have no qualms about the losing the cards part.
I'm saying that any deck that would run fel reaver wouldn't have any such important cards to play around anyways. All he has is low cost mechs and burn in this deck.
Thomas Shepard
What about any sort of AOE? Wouldn't at least some cards like that make it into the deck?
It's actually a benefit to the player to see which cards are burned. They will know what cards remain in their deck and they will be easier to fish for.
Trump's Fel Reaver antics just gave me an idea for a Rogue card.
*Counterintelligence*
Mana Cost: 4
Summon a Gnomish Saboteur on your opponent's side of the board.
*Gnomish Saboteur*
Mana Cost: 4 | Attack: 1 | Health: 7
Whenever your opponent plays a card, discard a card from the top of your deck.
Not too OP and synergizes well with the mill rogue. Plus, the Gnomish Saboteur is technically 'your opponent's' minion so they cannot throw their own creatures into it or use something like a Stampeding Kodo against it. Instead, they will have to silence or throw it into your own creatures to get rid of it lol.
Well, if a 1/7 that discards three cards is good, a 1/7 that only discards one is OP top tier Blizzard plz nerf.
Interesting concept , but it would never see play. You are basically giving your oponent a mogu'shan . Unlike fel reaver which is a disgustingly bad card imo , 1 discard is really not impactful enough to justify giving your oponent a minion.
It would make some people try mill rogue maybe ^_^
Fel Reaver is the new Zombie Chow; half the chat defending it and the other half screeching about how bad the card is.
A card like fel reaver is great in a game like yugioh, where today's meta basically has your graveyard acting as a second deck because so many cards can bring back cards from your graveyard. In hearthstone, milling your own cards has no benefits. Therefore, fel reaver is in the wrong card game. Other than that, its just a big minion that you can get out on turn 5. Also, in yugioh the min deck size is 40 and you can have up to 3 copies of most cards whereas in hearthstone the deck size is locked at 30 and you can only have 2 copies of most cards. This gives fel reaver a higher chance to mill some cards you can never get back that might be essential to your deck.
Bravo
Yu-gi-oh does have Fel Reaver based deck. Last I check Lightsworn made you mill x amount of cards each end turn.
I'm aware of that
Probabilistically, it doesn't really matter what cards Fel Reaver discards, you might as well pretend that it's discarding them from the bottom of your deck (unless you're playing a combo-wombo control deck where you're planning to go through almost your whole deck before winning, but if you're putting Fel Reaver in a control deck you're insane :P).
same with magic and min decksize is 60 but if you have no card left to draw you lose ^^
The discard matters - I don;t understand why people don't get this. Trump is vehemently defending the card in game two but its a main factor in him losing. You build a deck of 30 cards and you have 2 copies of each - you place the cards in the deck because they are useful and serve a particular purpose. You discard 1/3 of your deck if your opponent plays 3 cards and therefore your deck loses 1/3 of its usefulness. I get the argument that you don't see every card in every game but the reason we run two of each card is that we increase our odds of drawing that card.
The Fel Reaver does not single handedly win games unless your opponent is unlucky - you need the rest of your deck to win - the fact that you discard 1/3 of it just gimps your odds of winning. The card is indefensible and I think Trump is trying way too hard to defend its viability when he should be saying "Oh well - tried it out - its not very good".
Before you defend Trump to the death think about what I said for a second - your opponent plays 3 cards after you play Fel Reaver and you discard pretty much ONE THIRD of your deck. If the card text read 5 mana 8/8 - discard 1/3 of your deck when you play this card - you wouldn't run it.
Also for those of you who think Trump is somehow infallible I would like to point out that in game three his play literally guarantees him losing the game because his opponent had lethal on the board - Trading wasn't an option; it was absolutely necessary. He is human like the rest of us and does make mistakes (like defending Fel Reaver)
***** You realise I mention that in my comment right " I get the argument that you don't see every card in every game but the reason we run two of each card is that we increase our odds of drawing that card."
Trump is saying the deck design is wrong because he isn't running cards like cold blood etc. but when you are discarding 1/3 of your deck in a turn you are basically throwing those cards away. YOU NEED enough cards available to you to kill your opponent. Fel Reaver can end up doing absolutely nothing i.e you play it, your opponent plays 2-3 cards including one that removes it. In this case - goodbye 1/5th to 1/3 of my deck for absolutely no gain.
This deck is no where near aggressive enough to kill the opponent quickly enough for you to be able to happily discard 1/3 of your cards.
ALSO - you have TWO copies of each card - Lets say you run two copies of eviscerate - one copy will be in a portion of your deck you will see - one card lies at the bottom of your deck (the 1/3rd you don't see) - You discard the top copy - you don't see the second - You never play the card.
You lose way too much for very little gain - He has played the card - Turn 5 - in multiple games and the outcome was a loss.
He is just being stubborn - just like the time when he did free to play rogue to legendary and then EVENTUALLY realised - Can't do this and switched to Warlock (Even though at the start he kept insisting that it was completely possible and viable and doable and the same)
No one thinks Trump is always right no idea why you felt like adding that comment. He is however right about Fel Reaver in that a large chunk of people wrongly deem it a terrible card. Literally the worst thing about the card is the bad arguments people come up with why it is a bad card.
He isn't vehemently defending it - in fact he build this deck to test the reaver and see if it is worth building a deck around which it most likely isn't since it is just not unfair enough and vulnerable to BGH.
Fel Reaver doesn't have to single handedly win - you always have your full hand, and your regular draws.
The discards don't matter unless you reach fatigue at which point most aggro decks lost anyways. The only other reason why they matter is because your opponent gets insight of your remaining cards like "oh he discarded 2 eviscerates now he has less burst which probably isn't that big of a deal. Even after discarding 9 cards in your example that is still plenty of cards left to win with an aggro deck and the deck is build around the reaver so discarding mandatory cards isn't possible. That is not even accounting for your opponent maybe playing cards he wouldn't want to play just to trigger the reaver.
You're going the right way but you're thinking cintrol and not aggro. When playing aggro you need board cintrol to kill the opponent as fast as you can and to get said board control you need cards that you drew and can play but the Fel Reaver doesn't prevent you from drawing usefull cards unless you get to fatigue and that's the only case when it's bad. You said that we put cards in decks for a reason and I agree with that but take this for example. You are running a zoo deck and you take out something like Dark Iron Dwarf. Does the deck lose it's value and can't win anymore? Of course not! In this case Fel Reaver takes out many more cards but if you can't win without the cards Fel Reaver discarded (not close to fatigue) then you're closer to a combo deck which requires specific cards to win and THEN FR is bad. I hope you understood what I wanted to say and to mark this off : a card can get value only if you draw it.
jnZaneHD He has a lot of cards to win after discarding 9 cards does he? I feel that you are over estimating how many cards you have in Hearthstone.
You put particular cards in your deck in constructed because they serve a particular purpose. If your opponent deals with Fel Reaver (Consider that many decks run big cards so you have to have cards to counter them) which is incredibly likely then you burn 6-9 cards in your deck if you are lucky.
That leaves you with 21 cards, by turn 5 you will have already drawn 9 of your cards, and will have 3-4 cards in your hand (or more likely 1 or 2 given that you are playing as aggro and you play a lot of cards). Total number of cards after Fel Reaver remaining in your deck will be around 10.
You have basically ensured that certain aspects of your deck are no longer available to you because you have burned away a bunch of your cards - you have 9 cards left to draw to - your opponent has 20.
You lose too much for little gain - If your opponent is clever and can use their deck effectively they can make you burn many many more cards. If your opponent is clever they can take note of what cards you have burned and use that against you.
In a tournament environment this will cripple you completely. At higher levels of play this also cripples you and your deck.
The logic of oh you have other cards and oh you don't always see all of your cards is all good and well but the fact of the matter is - if you have less cards to draw from you are less likely to draw certain aspects of your deck because they have been burned. Your opponent is not gaining card advantage but you are infact giving yourself card disadvantage. Blizzard are clever enough to balance a card - if the downside was negligible then the card is overpowered but the fact of the matter is that in Hearthstone you only have 30 cards and you only have 2 copies of each card - you can't afford to burn away 1/3 of your deck.
I should also mention that in the GVG meta there are ALOT of 1 mana spells (i.e spare parts) - these can actually destroy you if you play Fel Reaver.
Nice rogue deck, bro. *cracked up chuckle
So, the only argument for Fel Reaver (except its stats of course) is :
The discards don't really matter, unless you reach the end of the deck.
However is it that unlikely ? How many cards do you need to play in order to deck someone with a reaver ? (hope my math is good haha)
Let's say you start first, and you'll play the reaver. Turn 5 you play it, that's : 4 cards initial draw, plus four cards drawn to reach turn 5. So you have 22 cards left in your deck (if you don't draw more using cards).
So your ennemy simply has to play 7 cards (7x3 = 21) in order to deck you . Six if he has the coin which is free. also, if you add the card you draw each turn, in three turn you can get decked by 6 cards, just two a turn.
Considering how fast the meta is, and some rush deck can play 7 cards in two/ three turns, ultimately dealing with the not so scary) fel reaver ( either by taunt or freeze or elimination)
I think it could work in a special deck. Not this one. I think this one is bad, and trump could do better, as seen on his recent plays against Amaz.
A fast deck will deck you fast, a control deck will kill your reaver, you only win if your opponent is playing a bad deck.
Plus, A milling deck, reks the fuck out of you.
The only thing this video convinced me of is to NEVER play Fel Reaver, unless I'm able to immediately silence it.
"It's still good, it's still good" opponent plays Tyrion Fordring, "ok".
Everyone's argueing about Fel Reaver, is it good, is it bad... And i'm sitting here like "The Fel Reaver has no follow up, thats why it's bad"
It's not bad, its okay. Trump overvalues it, a 5 mana 8/8 is not good enough on its own when there's a potential downside. If it was 4 mana then I would think its good.
I swear, those who are arguing with Trump that Fel Reaver is bad understand nothing about an aggro deck. Somebody asked him in his twitch stream if he would consider using Fel Reaver in Handlock. Really? Handlock is control, and the intent to use potentially every card in the deck is there, as the deck's strength shines in the late game. In Trump's rogue aggro deck, that intent isn't there, and in fact Trump wouldn't want to go past turn 7 or 8 if he had his way. Drawing more than half of the deck is basically pointless, leaving the other half or so cards to be completely meaningless. So to those who still don't understand what I'm (or Trump) is talking about, just pretend that the card reads, "For every card your opponent plays, discard 3 cards from the bottom of your deck" and go on your merry stupid way.
Fel Reaver won me a few games and I didn't even have to put it in my deck, amazing!
Thanks Jens!
Thanks for the upload, Trump!
Fel reaver is fucking awesome. I ran one in an arena once, it single handedly won me 4-5 games and I only lost one or two where I played it. I think It's great in arena just because the huge influx of GvG cards drastically reduced the chances of people drafting hard removal.
Edit: Also, good GOD you people have no balls.
"Now im out of cards fel reaver has no downside" yeah apart from the one that destroyed all your deck and meant you had no chance past t6
"You have to contribute the loss to the right thing!"
Fel Reaver got Peacekeeper'd and he milled all your cards. Clearly on purpose since he had healing in his hand.
Pro tip: Fel Reaver has *ZERO* drawback when you are actually out of cards.
Except that you ran out of cards.
Ah, this is wonderful, I didn't think of putting Jeeves in my rogue mech. Now I can remove loot hoarder and maybe an auctioneer. No Gallywix tho? That is a crime.
The only situation where Fel Reaver is bad is if it is massively debuffed, like we saw here with the peacekeeper. If the Reaver gets taken out by removal like BGH or hex... Whatever it doesn't matter, you lost nothing from it. But in that case, the paladin was able to both remove it, (crippling its firepower) AND make the drawback stick around for the entire game.
However in that situation it may not have made a difference, the paladin had pretty much stabilized and won
It still matters if it gets BGH'd or Hexed. You still lose at least three cards and your Fel Reaver's dead.
they play one card, you lose four. Not THAT worth, imho. Sure, if the opponent has no answers it's irrelevant (because 8 damage per turn it's still a 3-4 turns win) but there are too many answers against it. Even just a freeze with no damage blocks it for one turn and burns 3 cards (that you WOULD HAVE picked, but that's beyond the point since aggro deck, by definition, can "burn" cards without loosing too much) bringing you closer to the ultimate death of the deck.
IT DOESNT FAKKING MATTER THAT YOU BURNED 3 CARDS FROM YOUR DECK.
in a deck like this and also 95% of the time with any deck in existance, youare not going to make it to fatigue anyway and the "destroyed" cards are of no hindrance to you.
In a deck like this, if the game goes to fatigue you are dead anyways because its designed to be fast and kill swiftly and it has no lategame.
Shinigginaz And that's why it's not a good deck. It relies entirely on a card that is far too inconsistent and easily dealt with, and once the Reavers are gone, you're completely and totally fucked.
TheAlmightyVox no, it does not rely on fel reaver, it doesnt rely on anything its just all about spamming minions with synergy in it.
thats why it makes fel reaver so good because it doesnt rely on any combo pieces so it doesnt matter what you burn. most of the time it will even make it more likely for u to draw jeevez.
This deck seems like tons of fun. I personally would replace the reaver with some more burst though.
The only reason Fel Reaver is an asset is that it discarded the other Fel Reaver lmao
druid deck would be a nice for fel reaver just for the turn 3 or 2 innervate coin combo lol
Well, aside from a 5 mana 8/8 possibly not being enough, there are other facets.
I think one thing we all seem to forget when evaluating Fel Reaver is the fact that it basically puts you on a timer, too. Sure, the discard deck thing does nothing until you get into fatigue, but it brings you closer to fatigue faster than usual.
So, if you're up against a control deck, you'll run out of cards in the late game. I mean, sure we can argue that Trump's deck is aggro-ish and if we make it to that point, you basically lose anyway. However, it's still a down-side to the card.
Which basically means that putting it in a Control deck might not be the best thing.
Just saying.
"Fel reaver isn't bad!"
Almost every single loss could be contributed to that fucking giant poser.
So many people don´t get it, it´s really painful. Cards in your deck don´t matter, it only matters what you have in your hand. Do you all not know how to count card advantage? You count what you have on the board + what´s in your hand. THE DECK DOESN´T FUCKING MATTER. Fel Reaver won´t give you worse draws on average, in an aggro deck it´s simply a 8/8 for 5, decide if that´s good enough.
For the last turn against the hunter (~13:04) wouldn't it have been better to:
- Deadly Poison (1 mana used) making his weapon a 5/2, hit Scar (16 to 10 hp)
- Backstab enemy Fel Reaver (8 to 6 hp) then Blade Flurry (3 mana used, enemy hp 20 to 15), this leaves enemy Fel Reaver at 1 hp and 9 cards discarded, Coin, Tinkertown Tech and Spare Part from Tinker discards another 9 cards leaving the hunter to fatigue 1 hp on his next turn, then Trump trades his FR for Hunters FR.
Opponent has draws into his empty deck (15 hp to 14 hp) and has 3 cards in hand and 5 visible damage (Weapon 3 dmg and Hero Power 2 dmg) so he would probably hit trumps face leaving him at 5 hp, Hunter has 5 mana to play with
- After seeing the discarded cards from the Hunters deck we saw that he lost both Kill Commands (one when he played Blade Flurry and one with Tinkertown) I think the odds of Trump winning would have increased this way rather than how he did it since the Hunter would have to deal 5 dmg with the 5 remaining mana and only with 3 cards
- The three cards would have to be Cobra Shot (5 mana) for 3 dmg and hope trump doesnt have 7 dmg the next turn (The 7 visible dmg is Tinker hits Hunter for 4, dagger for 1 and fatigues 2 the next turn, Hunter total hp 7, Trump hp is 2 and dies from Hero Power) not many people run Cobra Shot, so it's more likely it will take 2+ more turns to kill Trump
- Or if the held cards were something like Explosive Trap + 3 mana Charge for 3 dmg
(There's probably more Hunter cards that can do 5 dmg but it's not a class I play often )
Fel Reaver is like that one guy in Highschool. He is awesome and funny, and genuinely nice to be around, but clumsy as fuck. You cannot trust him with your phone, or to finish your project with you. But when everything is going your way, he will definitively make things even better.
I guarantee if they didn't show you the cards that Fel reaver discarded not nearly as many would think its a bad card. Just because it still seems "random" when we don't know if the cards we need are or are not still in the deck, but it is actually the same outcome. If anything, showing you what cards were discarded is an advantage because you can strategize based on the lost cards. The only time I couldn't justify it is when you do go into fatigue like when the Fel reaver is in play like the paladin game.
I'll give two arguments against and two for Fel Reaver.
Arguments Against
1: The card is very greedy with too high of a risk, taking into consideration that a constructed deck should have no "Bad" cards in the deck. Fel Reaver reduces your chances of winning by discarding ANY cards due to the randomness of a card based game. Every card should be considered an asset, so gaining 1 large asset and potentially losing 3 (in a good situation) or ALL of your cards (which I've also had happen) and just having it removed gives little to no benefit.
2: Fel Reaver is also a card that can be considered a great card when few cards are played against it, but a Mountain, Sea, Clockwork, or Molten Giant has the same stats with the downside of needing to reach a certain mana threshold for them, which is a much less painful downside.
(Side point against it) In these 2 rogue constructed videos, the games Trump has won have primarily been without even DRAWING the Fel Reaver.
Arguments For
1: Fel Reaver is a solid body for 5 mana, the highest total (mana for stats) minion in the game. Fel Reaver is kind of like Zombie Chow for Trump, where many people look down on it because of it's backlash ability, but in a certain couple situations, Zombie chow can clear 1-3 minions and then be killed for no downside as you haven't done any damage to your opponent, just his minions.
2: Fel Reaver is a great body to combo with a rather useless card currently, Wailing Soul. Wailing soul has seen almost no play due to the drawback based deathrattles not seeing much play either, for example, Dancing Swords which I have yet to see in a constructed deck up to rank 5. If you can silence it after you play it, the drawback is gone and you have yourself a giant.
Final Analysis: The card is very situational and can be great in certain circumstances, but the drawback is humungous in the longer games which tend to be at the higher ranks (6-legend). Fel Reaver can be a pub-stomp card in the early ranks as your opponents will make more mistakes and just drop their hand to "discard" your deck, losing all of their hand control. In any good control matchup, Fel Reaver is a nuisance that will likely just lose you the game.
TL:DR; I think Fel Reaver is a decent card in certain decks, but it simply cannot keep up with the meta as it's downside is too large. Against aggro, you lose most of your deck and play with very limited cards, likely discarding some of your anti-aggro cards in the process. Against Control, it gets cleared for 1-3 cards/you lose 4, and that makes a huge difference when you get to higher ranked games that go into fatigue more often than not.
Gretchen, I mean Trump, stop trying to make fetch, I mean Fel Reaver, happen. It's never going to happen.
If you opponent spends 2 cards to deal with Fel Reaver, that's 6 cards you're burning, tossing them straight down the drain, plus another 1 for the Fel Reaver spot. If you play another, and the opponent again spends 2 cards getting rid of the Fel Reaver, that's another 7 cards down the drain. 14 cards, HALF THE DECK, spent on getting rid of 4 of the opponents cards. I don't see the attraction of this card.
Isn't it awesome how a single card can cause so much frustration outside the game? I call that good design.
I feel like that one meme with the futurama guy: Not sure if serious,
or trying to get people to play fell reaver on ladder to win...
I just wish this fel reaver existed all the times I played miracle rogue ^^
Problem with the fel reaver is that having only 2 big cards in an aggro deck is that enemies will save their hard removal for those two. Control warrior is strong because it overloads the hard removal. And this deck plays right into it with exactly only two targets that are considerable. There has to be a meta where half of the aggro decks are with and the other half without fel so that the enemy won't keep the hard removal in the hand.
One more problem is that they buff bgh horribly so that it's good against control and aggro. This card will probably die in a few weeks.
Unless there are enough idiots so that this card will see so less play that people don't play around it. (which means the people hating it are making this card better^^)
At 17:19 my side of the board was like that with clockwork gnome instead being mechwarper against my friend on round 2. Coin OP
Really interesting. I run almost the exact same deck here. I use a black knight instead of one of the fel reavers though. I don't have 2 and I run into a lot of taunts. Fel reaver has worked great in my experience though. I don't have that wrench card either. It doesn't look great to me, maybe it's better than I think? One thing I was surprised about was how Trump never got a good Jeeves going in any of these games. Pretty unlucky. I win most of the games I do because of jeeves drawing 3 cards as early as turn 5-6 rather consistantly.
I like rogue, and i like this deck. It's fun to play :) I have 8 wins in a row at rank 5 on EU,and like 4 of this was won by Fel Reaver.
I think cards like Fel Reaver are introduced by Blizz to make Mill Decks a thing in Hearthstone - so you hae like a forth deck besides control, aggro and midrange... (if u don't call milling a control type of deck)
I play Tinker's Sharpsword Oil instead of Fel Reaver in a similar rogue mech deck, and it's been ok in preliminary testing. Gives you a bit more burst damage to finish out a game which a deck like this desperately needs.
Hey, if Trump likes Fel Reaver, that's cool. Doesn't impact my viewing pleasure at all. He's one of the best HS players out there, so his opinion on one card must be sufficient enough for him, and that's all that matters. As for me, I play a priest deck on ladder where every card is important, so I couldn't see myself using it, but I applaud Trump for giving it a go and seeing the potential of such a card.
Thanks, Trump. I always enjoy your videos. :)
Fel Reaver only matters if you reach fatigue, or if you have draw effects in play/in hand that are no longer usable because you have insufficient cards to draw the full effect. A good example of this is the second game in this video where trump actually hits fatigue and probably could have won if he had more cards to draw to nullify the Tirion(such as a silence or something). In every other match in this video where he loses he would not have won even if the Fel Reaver was a vanilla 8/8 for 5 mana, so its downside had no effect on the outcome of the match. People are attributing the losses to the Fel Reaver because of confirmation bias, but aside from that one match if you look at all of the other cases here the effect of Fel Reaver was not a contributing factor to the losses, the other cards he played being unable to control the board or too easy to remove were the reason he lost.
Fel Reaver: it looks like a 5 mana 8/8, but it's actually a 5 mana spell bait that uses up a few of their cards and mills half your deck.
As Druid: Innervate, Innervate, Fel Reaver; a pretty solid play on turn 1 though of course, a dream hand
The number one problem with Fel Reaver isn't the card text, it's that it's the one good target for BGH/Hex/Poly/Siphon Soul/SW:D/whatever in what's going to be a deck that doesn't have any other worthwhile targets for those spells, so 90% of the time your opponent is going to have an answer for it in his hand. The discard really isn't an issue until you get into the range of losing 15 cards, and if it stays on the board that long it probably won you the game already. Personally my Hunter deck (which gets little use I admit) will run Fel Reaver.
I think he should get rid of Jeeves because when he burns cards with fel reaver it normally burns Jeeves at some point, so he needs cards which are useful in any situation, maybe 2 cold bloods instead. In this vid he got 1 draw out of Jeeves...
Please put a link in the description to every moment a fel reaver comes out.
For people who don't understand why fel reaver is good. In an aggro deck you are supposed to win before those discards actually matter. Imagine if you were to say take 3 cards from the bottom of your deck and put them on the side. It is the exact same affect. As long as you don't hit the threshold of not having anymore cards, fel reaver has no draw back.
You can discard cards you do and do not need, it's completely random in the shuffle. So the logistics of having your best X cards at the bottom of the deck is the same as getting your best X cards discarded by fel reaver. Fel reaver of course will not work in decks that need combos/utilize draw/try to fish for specific cards.
I think the biggest downside to fel reaver that trump didn't seem to acknoweldge is that it says a lot about your deck. Not only that, but if it ends up discarding cards they fear, they can stop playing around it. I do completely agree with the discarded cards not mattering in the sense that.. well. they don't matter. But you opponent knowing what cards you no longer have can be a decent advantage for your enemy.
The thing that's actually kind of awkward with Fel Reaver is that classic control cards that are usually only good against other control decks now have a good use against aggro too. I'm wondering if this means that Fel Reaver will only really accomplish anything against other aggro decks. And druid.
i like that deck, it has more than 50% win rate. I made a few changes though. I took out a sensei and a tinkertowns and i put 2 arcane golems.Also i had to put 2 cold bloods in the deck(tinker's oil is too expensive hard to play when jeeves is at hand), so there's more chance to find that instant final damage when needed. Also, cold blood can work as an eviserate and help you get rid of a strong creep with taunt or not, who could be a menace even for fel reaver.For that reason i put out a harvest golem and an eviserate. Have you also considered spider tanks?
After watching this I remain totally convinced that fel reaver is a shocking card unless silenced, there's no "value" here trump just a card that auto-mills your deck for you, any control works on that card, freeze, taunts, hex etc all it does is just lose cards, of which you only have 30
Haven't been liking fel reaver in this deck. Any good replacements? Also I need a wrench replacement atm because I need one, but I will probs just use perdition blade.
Think of every card not drawn as a Schrodinger cat. That fireball you need to win is both at the top and bottom of the deck at the same time. If you don't know about Schrodinger's cat, look it up and maybe that will make it clearer to you.
I guess the upside to the downside of Fel Reaver is that your opponent tends to overvalue it and play sub-optimally to exploit it (e.g. leaving the Reaver alive or playing different cards)
Looks like it's a good deck to climb from rank 6 to rank 11!
I can understand Trump's reasoning behind Fel Reaver because, as he says in a couple of games, it doesn't matter that he is losing the cards from his deck because even drawing them it would not help him win. On the flip side it is a situational card and you essentially have to be winning to actually play it effectively without your opponent having a way to use it's effect to their advantage. It is more of a game finisher than a game changer. As far as I can tell, it's worst enemies are Zoo, Miracle Rogue and Freeze Mage with a standalone weakness of Aldor Peacekeeper. I'd rate Fel Reaver as a 5/10.
I have this image in my head with trump in an insane asylum shouting "fel reaver is good, I swear!" over and over.
You say 'I keep running into these worst case scenarios, dude there are only bad scenarios when playing that card, it's just a fucking shitcard. (fel reaver)
Re: "just because you didn't play those cards that does not mean they don't have value"
In a game where Fel Reaver would not have caused you to fatigue:
If instead of discarding from your deck, Fel Reaver instead moved the top cards of your deck to the bottom would it be better? (Hint: no, and in 4 of the 5 games it was played in here Trump didn't fatigue) The outcome is literally exactly the same but it breaks your illusion of massive card disadvantage.
GvG seems to be pretty big on 2/3 or 3/2 with benefits for 2 mana. I wonder if Blizzard took the wrong message from the way people played.
The power has gone to his head.
Video title : Cry me a Reaver?
During this video Trump won 1 game where he played the Fel Reaver. Just throwing it out there.
No man, you NEED silence for his ability
Was there any considerations between replacing fel reaver with venture co.
Downside to Fel Reaver in this video: 2 discarded cards in one game only. That's it. The discards from the deck don't matter when you don't fatigue (unless you're playing a deck reliant on drawing specific cards like Alexstraza, which Trump isn't).
Trump played Fel Reaver 5 times across 7 games in this video. In 4 of the 5 games it was played in, it had no downside. In the paladin game, it cost Trump 2 cards (same as doomguard played with a full hand).
You can respond to your opponents greetings every once in a while
Discards do not actually matter before fatigue. Let's say that your fel reaver is on the board and you are searching for some card to win the game, perhaps tinker's oil. You have D cards left in your deck before any discards and 1 tinker's oil left in it. Your opponent plays cards to make you discard C cards from your deck, leaving you with Z cards remaining. The alternative situation, of course, is that fel reaver's card text has been silenced away.
In the first situation, the probability of drawing the card you want is
C/D * 0 + Z/D * 1/Z = 0 + 1/D = 1/D
The first term deals with the case in which you discard the card you are looking for and therefore cannot draw it. The second term deals with the case in which the card remains in your deck and the probability of drawing it. Since these events are mutually exclusive, we can add the probabilities of both cases together to find that, as long as there are cards left to draw at the end of your turn, the probability that oil will be your next card is completely independent of how many cards are discarded.
The second situation is that no discards happen, in which case the probability is simply the odds of drawing the card, 1/D.
Discarding only matters when it means that you have no more cards to draw. The argument that "you might throw away a valuable card that you need" is perfectly balanced by the argument that "it is more likely to draw the card you need if you don't discard it." Discarding cards does not change the odds of the next card you draw being any specific card. However, if you discard the rest of your deck, you no longer draw any cards. The drawback to fel reaver is that you fatigue faster and begin losing card advantage.
The issue with a lot of the arguments against fel reaver that are being called bad arguments is that they only care about the situation in which you discard the card you want, which is only a portion of the cases. As shown above, the situation in which you don't discard the card balances the numbers out so that the odds don't change.
Just to settle this. Fel Reaver is a card... Thats it. Its just another card that may or may not help you win. The only thing that determines if it is bad or good depends on the deck you put it in and the deck your opponent plays. The only deck you SHOULD put it in is a rush deck with a bunch of weak low cost cards. That way whatever the Fel burns probably wasn't important anyways. If your opponent manages to burn your entire deck and they're still at 15-10 cards you weren't going to win anyways, Fel Reaver or not. The reason why? Their deck was already efficient at keeping yours at bay, an 8/8 most likely won't change that.
On the topic of silencing it? IDK, at that point its just a beefed up War Golem, its alright but not a game changer.
Still waiting for that mega value Gnomish Experimenter deck.
At the beginning I was skeptical as to how useful Fel Reaver actually is. After trying the rogue deck out with 2 Reavers and finishing my opponent by the 6th turn, I can agree on the usefulness of this card, you just have to get the right combo (I'm not saying it can't backfire, but Reaver + Cold Blood + Weapon dmg can easily defeat the opponent, even if he's on 15 or higher hp).
pretty cool. still not really sold on reaver though.
29:19 I think the mistake was Fell Reaver, It has been stated before, If you want cheap giants, play handlock. It has many cheap giants so that the hard removal of other decks don't seem as bad when you have mountain giants and molten giants left. With this however you are simply trying to make a deck AROUND fel reaver seeing how you are milling all your cards.
The big problem with that rogue deck is that if literally anything goes wrong you run out of steam and lose. The hands also seem to be pretty inconsistent.
HardyHar was certainly happy to see your Fel Reaver Trump. Yeah, that card is very good...so please everyone, *play with it!* Thanks!
I see Fel Reaver as a "win more" card, or "insta-loose the game" card...
You win more if they can't deal with it.
You insta-loose if they have an answer.
"I just have to win with these cards." the problem with Reaver in a nutshell. "I just have to win with my hand, and my board, plus a 5 mana 8/8"
so what you are saying is that you are already likely going to win regardless of the reaver, and it could just be any other big card, and have the same effect. basically a sea giant, which is considered bad in constructed, except it mills you.
I understand the argument that "the cards being destroyed by Fell Reaver might as well be in the bottom of your deck, and thus never really matter". That being said, surely, there ought to be a point to which discarding cards from your deck does significantly matter in the long run. For instance, with a dedicated aggro deck, at around turn 7 or 8 one should usually either win or bust, right? Under normal circumstances, how many cards do you usually draw into your hand by then? Let's say somewhere between 10-16 as a reasonable hypothetical estimate (don't think too hard about it, your mileage may vary). If the Fell Reaver discards fewer cards than you would ever need during a regular game without it (say between 3-12, tops), then sure 5 mana 8/8 is quite good, not broken good, but pretty good value nonetheless (Handlock usually does better). However, what if Fell Reaver discards more than that? At some point, if left alone, Reaver will discard enough cards where your deck is simply left without any fuel to even top deck for answers, which inevitably leads to a loss. One then has to wonder if Fell Reaver ever really makes up for this disadvantage. An 8/8 body is always a threat, but how hard is it to answer? Does it provide enough tempo advantage? Is it unfair enough for constructed? What is the general threshold at which destroying one's own cards is acceptable? It's hard to find an objective answer to these, as people will disagree and argue with each other on several of these points, and it's not like either side's without merit.
Personally, I don't think Fell Reaver is nearly as much garbage as people make it out to be, but I do consider it limits the win scenarios the deck can achieve. Fell Reaver strengthens the deck in the "all-in" aspect, by providing a big body very early on. What it also does however is break any hope of going into later turns and still win, something that could still be possible with the same deck without it (far too often zoo wins by top-decking that extra bit of damage they need). Though it's true cards don't have any real value until they're in your hand, over time, the loss of potential value of cards will be felt the more keep being destroyed, and more often than not, the downside seems to prove more detrimental than the upside beneficial.
All in all, I feel Fel Reaver doesn't really have a place in competitive constructed decks, or aggro decks to be precise. It may have a place in some gimmick Anima Golem deck or something. Anyways, I may be proven wrong, but so far I feel its slot can be replaced with something better here. A shame, really; I do like its design.
when i first got fel reaver i though waste of a card, decided to try him one day , never looked back :)
Trump vs. The Fans regarding Fel Reaver is a more epic match-up than most actual Hearthstone matches.
Trump stop trying to make Reaver work *face palm*
Fel reaver benefits: super tempo play 8/8 for 5 mana. Almost as good as handlock mountain giant.
Drawbacks: can be BGH. Will destroy your late game by reducing total playable cards if played in mid game.
Therefore, fel reaver can be used in tempo decks, aiming to end the game before turn 10.
Do not ever place this in a control deck, unless you can silence it.
To me it looks like Trump is correct in saying the deck needs to be more aggressive, but he also needs to play the deck more aggressively. Your fel reaver is more effective the earlier you play it. The drawback on the card is a cost for ramp (getting a powerful card out early). Trump needs to get it out as fast as possible because the longer he waits to play it the more likely his opponent has an answer which allows the game to go longer which is how you defeat an aggressive deck.
Obviously, I don't do this for a living and he does, so he could just be on another level. But it seems to me he is still a control player who defaults to control strategies even when playing an aggressive deck.
Lets share our worst Fel Reaver moments. My worst moment had to have been when I was playing a Mech Mage against a Mill Rogue and the Rogue's Death Lord pulled out my Fel Reaver. I was winning up until that point, and his next turn I went from 14 cards to 0 in my deck.
It's like drawing lots. It doesn't matter what order you draw them, the chance for each player to wins is the same. You cannot control the discard, and so those cards that get milled have the exact same chance to never be drawn. The only real downside is that Fel Reaver makes you GET TO FATIGUE SOONER as your cards are discarded. So when you make a deck around it, you need not only expect to win before you normally fatigue, but in 6-7 turns, hence the cold blood comment from Trump. Basic high school math guys. don't base your opinions on ignorance.
is fel reaver really worth it without a silence? Worst case scenario, it deals with a sludge belcher.
I'd personally take out the SI7 Agents out of this deck. They're good value, yeah, but they aren't mechs and if you want to Combo them they frequently sit around until turn 4 or 5. Annoy-o-Tron is also questionable for me, but I guess they're there to protect Cogmaster and Iron Sensei. I'd definitely think about including Sap and Cold Blood. Especially Sap because that lets the Fel Reaver hit face, which is essentially what it's designed to do as far as I'm concerned.
I wonder how many people here would suddenly think Fel Reaver was good if it said it discarded from the BOTTOM of your deck.
(Protip: it wouldn't actually be a change)
You play Fel Reaver in a ramp deck because if you're still alive when there's 9 cards left in your deck you've fucking lost anyway.
The only exceptions are freeze-locking it (frostbolts, etc) and, as we saw in this video, Peacekeeper/Humilty. Essentially, making it useless as a minion but making it unable to be removed by the opponent. Then again, as we ALSO saw, the -7 attack ended up mattering infinitely more than the fact that he could've drawn something on that last turn... Something that probably wouldn't've mattered. Like really he needed an assassinate or something similar at the end to have any HOPE of winning... And he had nothing like that in the deck.
As someone else said, the card could've said "...discard 3 cards from the BOTTOM of your deck," and people would've freaked out less even though it makes literally NO difference.
The design of this card is brilliant: it's shit in control, where you get into late game and where fatigue states/low # of cards remaining is common, thus the discards matter. However, in aggro, especially hyper-aggro, these states equate to "Why the fuck are you still playing?" Aggro cards are meant to be played on-curve and are meant to reduce the opponents health to 0 as fast as possible. In the lategame cards like Tirion, Slyvanas, Ironbark, etc, can very, very easily get 3-or-4-for-1s. You won't lose because you didn't get a card those 2 turns you were fatiguing, you lost because it got to that point. What 2 cards would've won you the game? If it costs more than Fel Reaver you're playing the wrong deck.
If your first starting out and you get fell reaver, use it because a lot of beginning decks can't deal with it, and if they do, you'll only lose 3 cards. But in advanced decks, it sucks and you will usually end up wasting half your deck on and 8/8. Get a giant , do not craft this.
A 5 mana 8/8 is good...unless it's turn 5. I know this sounds crazy, but it's true. On turn 5 as an aggro deck, you need to play fast cards that do something immediately to tip the balance in your favor and prevent the opponent from stabilizing. It helps you greatly to make your opponent's removal become a dead card clogging up their hand. Fel Reaver means that their removal is actually useful and their hand works, making it almost as if you passed on turn 5.
Think of it this way:the dream is for the opponent to get nervous and be forced to play removal on your midgame or even earlygame minions (Assassinate on a Mech Yeti, for example), so that they lose value and tempo and when it comes to turn 8, your big guy has no answer and just kills them. This doesn't work if you play your big guy on turn 5.
The chance to end up going into fatigue way early just makes sure you never win any prolonged games. Aggro normally still has some chance to make a turn 10 win unless Druid Tree of Lifes.
tl;dr:Fel Reaver is too slow and it gives your opponent tempo right as you'd be about to win otherwise. A turn 5 8/8 isn't worth it.