The difference between a skilled Hunter and a “midwit” Hunter can be a 20% (or more) winrate difference in some (not all) matchups.
I understand that I make a bold claim here, but it Altair sees this, he can confirm. He knows from experience that I’m a far scarier aggro player than even most Legend aggro players. 
If you’re an aggro deck, maximizing damage to face equals maximizing chances to win. That’s your strategy, tactic and plan of action xD
Because you had less synergy between cards, less removal, less card draw…less of anything. That meant your plans would be fixed and not change, and you would only depend on luck of the draw. Today, you gotta plan for black swan events if they can cause you automatic defeat, and if playing around them doesn’t significantly lower your chances of winning later.
For us, humans, with this amount of synergies in decks, it’s impossible. While it’s easy to use rule of thumbs and strategies to dictate your plays (and it’s not only easy, it’s actually winning to do so properly), sometimes it doesn’t work out for you because of the luck of the draw.
I can play Baritone imp over Disposal Assistant every time, and I know that 50% of the times I will lose because I will draw all my Sludge package and none of my Fatique package.
The thing is, just because you’re playing an aggro deck, it doesn’t mean you’re always supposed to play it aggro. I play sludgelock aggro, aggro-control, tempo, midrange and even OTK from time to time, depending on the matchup and our draws.
Every different archetype/playstyle comes with different rules of thumb and therein lies the complexity of the game, decision making and agency.
If you just always play the same playstyle no matter what, you cost yourself a lot of agency and play suboptimally a lot. The thing is, most of the top 200 players will choose the correct playstyle most of the times and they won’t even be able to explain to you why they’re playing the same deck, or even a same hand, differently in different matchups.
They just “feel” it’s right, based on experience.
I can’t speak about exact numbers, but the difference is, obviously, huge.
I can take a Sludgelock and cruise to 5-6k legend with 78-80% winrate and by the time I hit rank 200, the winrate will be down to 51%
So I’d say maybe the number is even higher than 20% xD
Yes, Scr0tie’s hunter is a menace, but that’s just cuz he belongs to top 100 but doesn’t play the game
If your talking about me this is my main account, I don’t hide like a little child or troll. If I have something to say I say it. Interesting name BTW… If I get banned or suspended, such is life.
Thats not allways correct. You need to know when the better play is to go face and when it is not to.
Thanks now look what the trolls doing in my other thread they even using chat gpt to insult me lmao.
Sigh…
You’re not thinking strategically.
Value trading often serves exactly to maximize dmg to face (to protect your highest dmg minions), so that’s already included in the “maximize dmg to face” rule of thumb.
What a sad response. Really, you’re gonna say: “Huh huh, sounds like you’re poor.” I just don’t like a meta defined by whether your deck can handle getting otked on turn 6 when the opponent has 0 board state and there is no counter play. What’s wrong with complaining about that? Stop being disingenuous, rude, and a shill for once in your life.
I am pretty sure that’s totally different so you would be better off not bringing such a silly comparison.
Whoever said burn is a type of aggro, just lol. Get over yourself, please.
Aggro will always exist in CCGs.
Burn and aggro are completely different approaches. You burn all their resources first while dealing damage, then finish them off.
Aggro, or what you all call aggro, revolves around low-cost minions, spells, just going face and killing them, hoping they don’t draw the right cards fast enough to win. When aggro is unbalanced, its near imposible ever to draw the right cards fast enough to win.
Yes Ik but 90% of ppl on these forums think aggro decks just go face period and completely ignore the board only. This is why I said what I said.
I don’t know if a definition exists somewhere, but to me burn IS an aggro deck. The only difference is that burn decks revolve around spells more while aggro decks revolve around minions more.
Idk, in my time, we used to differentiate “face decks” and “aggro decks”
Face decks, like Face Hunter, literally shouldn’t ever trade, while aggro decks should absolutely take all the value trades to maintain board pressure
We call them aggro because they put more low-cost cards in the deck than any other, that’s the only difference
My sludgelock is aggro, mostly, and has been that way for 5-6 months, primarily as a counter to control Warrior, but nowadays, I can turn it into a combo, midrange, aggro-control, burn/aggro or whatever the hell I want or need in each matchup
The line between archetypes is getting thinner and thinner. Where we used to think strategically about using our resources to outlast an opponent, now we think about our win condition in every matchup. Should I run him down fast? Should I take the value path? Should I out-tempo them?
That’s what the today’s Hearthstone is all about - not WHEN you use your resources, but WHY.
My win condition in every match up is knowing what my opponent is going to do (predicting) and how to punish their plays or mistakes. I try to get them to use up their resources or bait them out then punish the mistakes.
Thats my idea of a burn deck as well. It was taught to me that was a burn deck. A deck that just plays around baiting the other player to waste there resources up fast then you kill them. If that was wrong then pardon me for the wrong terminology. I was taught this playing MTG at a card shop.
My other win condition is surviving my oponents deck wile I watch them make a mistake and or see an opertunity to go for a win.