Most all games devolve into this.
1 Like
Stall, Stall, and control thinks it knows all.
1 Like
Stall the defense is all aggro does so it can go face. Board control is not important at all to them if they can ignore it and you guessed it, go face.
But to rhyme with your post:
Stall the defense, aggro wins at games expense.
1 Like
In a game where the goal is to reduce you’re opponents health to zero, people are going to reduce their opponents health to zero.
6 Likes
Then they need to make that more difficult as many cards in this game about maintaining board control as this is supposed to be important. Board should not be allowed to be ignored and still achieve victory. Maybe if your ignored any minions on the board they get to attack twice next turn but can only use this extra attack against other minions.
It is important, if you have trouble facing aggro, there are infinite things you can do about it
- play aggro
- play control
- make intelligent decisions
- find a decks weakness and exploit it
- always kill the angler
btw if a aggro deck completely ignores board control and STILL wins, you’re doing something wrong
Not if you can freeze the board.
Also I notice you listed Aggro as the top way to defeat aggro …see the problem here?
Against Aggro:
-
Play taunts (still many good ones are expensive to some).
-
Mass removal preferably AoE (thus leaving little space for other cards/win condition)
-
Of your post is merely passive aggressively implying anyone who dies to aggro is not intelligent or capable of making intelligent decisions (shame on you).
1 Like
I’m not saying that if you lose you’re stupid, i’m saying that it’s more than likely you messed up somewhere, big difference dude
Only if there was solution to find or if you’re just hoping for luck. You can play perfectly and simply not be able to defend against holes in design.
1 Like
Sure but saying that every game is decided on who can hit face the best is a flawed idea
Statistics on aggro against control wins in hearthstone in a google search. Will not allow me to link it but, :
Metastats dot net /decks /winrate
Look at the top decks.
Define your definition of aggro, cause I just see a lot of midrange hunter decks
Aggro can be early to midrange…
Midrange and Aggro are two entirely different deck concepts.
There is a Control deck in the top 3 right now, though after the Rogue nerfs that may change.
The only true Aggro decks doing much right now are Tempo Rogue and Mech Hunter, and even that one feels more midrange than Aggro.
“True” aggro goes more face than anything else. That is why many refer to them as “face” decks.
This doesn’t change the fact that the game is far from dominated by aggro at the moment, nor that midrange and aggro are two entirely different things, contrary to your claim that aggro can be midrange.
1 Like
Not a claim. It works in practice. All aggro needs to do is go face more than anything else.
This face only orientation is what makes an aggro deck aggro and can lead into midrange or near enough to matter. Midrange kicks at midrange but midrange can also go into late game if the card fall right. The main difference is that Aggro doesn’t fair as well at midrange as they tend to run out of threats quicker than a deck actually designed to go into deep midrange. You are trying to make them clear cut and mutually exclusive though this is fundamentally incorrect as they can overlap and share certain characteristics.
The “fact” is that the OP is about going face not necessarily exclusively aggro though a good portion of your arguments up to this point are largely strawman in nature anyway.
Except not, because midrange decks are about the mana curve, not hitting face at every opportunity.
Midrange decks do not hit face at every opportunity.
You think midrange refers to the middle of the mana curve. This is wrong. Midrange refers to curving out effectively. Aggro wants to put out as much damage as it can quickly. Midrange is a more tempo oriented style that interacts with the board.
Saying your claim that aggro decks can be midrange is wrong is not a strawman argument. Your claim is just fundamentally wrong. They’re two entirely different play styles and to me it seems like you just don’t understand what midrange means.
1 Like
There you go re-read please and it may become clearer. Also while you are reading please read the OP as it talks about FACE damage which can occur in midrange as well and can be substantial especially if slanted that way.
The strawman argument is when you tried to say I was only referring aggro exclusively. Again read, please.
“Devolve” is a fairly disparaging term to use for a strategic in-game decision that most decks have to make at some point.
This is not true, and you would know that if you’d ever played an aggro deck at a high level.
There hasn’t been a true “face” deck in several years now (the 8-day period last year where Odd Hunter was in the metagame hardly counts). Not even Pirate Warrior was a true “face” deck; a huge portion of that deck’s true power came from the fact that N’Zoth’s First Mate + Patches was the best turn-1 board-control play in the game, and no other deck stood a decent chance at establishing a board in the first 3 turns against it.
Most aggro decks fight hard for board control, against any deck that really wants its minions to survive. This is why Zoo is so good against Murloc Shaman; everyone knows Murlocs snowball much better, but Zoo controls the board from early on and prevents that from ever happening.
Yes, there exist board states where hitting face with most or all minions is the better play. But practically all decks make that decision dynamically, in a variety of contexts. And this game is better because neither one is always the right play.