I wouldn’t call it exactly playstyle but deck character, because someone may have a style to play it badly, but I get your point.
In terms of aggro vs control it isn’t. I think the combo distinction is the least relevant; combo decks are basically just control decks with win conditions that don’t suck.
What are you talking about. The definitions are very specific. You don’t define combo by defining control first; combo does relatively long term and complex combinations (because very short term and simple combinations are done by all decks); you could argue all decks are sort of combo to a lesser or higher degree but that’s another discussion.
No, that’s not another discussion. Precisely because every deck is to a lesser or higher degree a combo deck, it’s not what distinguishes between deck archetypes.
Control, tempo, aggro, midrange are, something along those lines
All combo decks are control decks in essence.
1 Like
What are you talking about. The meme mage is comboing and it’s not control.
It can control your face and board and kill you but that’s a side effect.
Priest went Aggro and Hunter is going Control.
Crazy times we’re living in, friend. Crazy times.
Before you know it, Paladin will be the hardest class in the game to play.
1 Like
Wait till you see the new class to be released…oops…
1 Like
Combo is just as much an archetype as tempo is. Moreso, as its not an aggro/control hybrid archetype like tempo is.
Octopus class? Now don’t you go getting excited, Reaver!
1 Like
Are they? Maybe in your head. Certainly in my own. But what control means seems to me to be a contested topic.
2 Likes
You control the other player’s game in a very drastic manner; this has some subjectivity in it because EVERYTHING affects the other player (e.g. just damaging them or doing basic trading); but it implies (since the players gave it a name) that its about drastic versions of that.
E.g. a warrior constantly clearing a paladin’s board (and the paladin relies on that board) is doing control; there’re cases of NOT doing control; e.g. a shaman that OTKs from hand after it plays from hand without affecting the boad is the opposite of contolling.
The definitions aren’t split 100% distinctively; e.g. combo is supposedly doing complex combinations (more than others); then adding aggro to the mix is a bit like comparing apples and oranges because it refers to speed but it might be doing simple combos.
Uh, no… that’s not how that works. Ysera is a minion. Is playing that aggro?
All I’m really asking for is just a very basic level of critical thinking here.
That’s very subjective. I like it better when things are measurable because the measurement of empirical data smashes the enemy of subjectivity. That’s why I define control as benefiting from the game going longer. It’s not hard to see how the warrior clearing the paladin’s board could stall the game and thus play into a strategy of making the game go later and into a better position for the warrior.
But ultimately, removal doesn’t win the game. It just stops you from losing. Control decks rely on late game win conditions. Combos are the best late game win conditions. The best control decks, IMHO, are removal in the front, combo in the rear. (And if they’re not, then they have powerful anticombo tools like Bombboss.)
But that’s the subjective part. The important part is control wants the game to go longer. Measurable.
Hunter kinda was a hybrid control deck with hound and starpower not too long ago. It was a nightmare
1 Like
I doubt the whole terminology started from measuring anything, it’s just people “feeling” their card game and giving some abstract labels to their decks.
The labels are obviously not very descriptive on their own; e.g. practically all decks are partly “combo”; you have to look at all cards to know a deck.
I welcome it with open arms.
Even though it frustrated me at times, I could appreciate the last iteration of ‘Control’ Hunter, which used Lor’themar and Faithful Companion to pull off an OTK.
In my opinion, that’s the pinnacle of how a Control deck in Hearthstone should play like in regards to player sentiment.
Very fun deck to play and to face.
Yes. Doing anything at all that ends the game before turn limit or unassisted fatigue due to only using the start of turn draw is Aggro.
Of course. Terminology arises when someone sees something they don’t have a word for yet and gives it one. Not precise or measured; just needed a word. But humans love measurement and categorization and taxonomy. Inevitably, as the terminology develops, it becomes more defined, often more measurable. CCG terminology has had over 3 decades to evolve.
I frankly just don’t like the term “combo” as a type of deck. Combo is a unique interaction between two or more cards that produces a synergistic effect. It’s a mechanic within a deck, not a type of deck. Deck types, to me, would be better considered on a binary spectrum from aggro to control based on when they want the game to end, much like Scrotie described.