Term definitions

Multiplayer Discussion
1

Just because somewhat every discussion here at one point gets a little derailed i think we need a discussion in this forum about good definitions for ways to describe the game.

My starting point is thus:

for winconditions we have multiple:

combo can be defined then by “assembling a big but finite amount of dmg to close out the game within 1turn”
tempo can be defined by “amassing more resources than your opponent can deal with by e.g. drawing cards or reducing costs”
value on the other hand is probably best defined by “gaining an resource advantage by using cards more efficiently” (e.g. clearing a board with 1 card the opponent spent 4cards building, or playing one big minion the opponent needs several cards trading into to remove)
Burn: “dealing direct, but usually finite dmg from hand/without using the board to kill your opponent”
So the new Mage/Warlock Quest are mostly Burn in character, but with the asterisk that the dmg is infinite.
the Warrirorquest would be a combination of Burn and Tempo

different from that i think we have playstyles:

aggro: forcing the opponent to react to you, trying to close the game out fast
control: keeping your opponents wincondition in check in order to buy time for your own wincondition to come online
midrange: aiming to curve out your deck perfectly to grow an advantage

2

I say there is only aggro, combo, and control.
Every other term falls in one of those three.

1 Like
3

What about tempo? Tempo isn’t aggro or control.

4

They’re all MTG terms, so the best thing to do is… refer to MTG.

The MTG wiki has definitions for Tempo deck, Aggro deck, Control Deck, Combo Deck.

5

that is the problem we currently have, if people insist on unprecise language we can never have a good discussion about the basics.

and we´ll run circles about people saying a combo deck is control or it isn´t.

Whilst if you use the above definitions you can say a combodeck usually plays control in terms of not aiming to win with what they do but rather focusing on their opponent not winning - until they assemble their combo.
But you also have the tools to describe Garrotte Rogue that can win by just overwhelming the opponent on board with it´s resources at times, while it still generally in most games does want to assemble the combo.

If we can be more precise in our language we can understand each other much better hopefully.

6

These conversations pretty much always wind up going sideways because of subhective interpretations, but I’d argue that

Isn’t really accurate. Combos are typically played as a bunch of synergizing cards at once to win the game. In the case of decks that close the game with burn - be it Quest Mage or even something like old Secret Mage - they really aren’t assembling a specific combo or needing to do anything at once, they’re just drawing into and pumping out damage.

1 Like
7

some definitions are really weird ive seen people say " if it wins between turn 7 --8 isnt a control deck"

1 Like
8

so we probably need the addition of “within 1 turn”

for the other cases i think questmage is kind if an irregularity in comparision with the way hearthstone played before the most recent expansion in terms of the inevitability.

But alas you might be on to sth if we just look at it with tempo in mind. As if we´d take the tempo (in form of carddraw and manacheating) out of the deck and only had the quest it would just fall apart.
Still, the infinite aspect of it probably sets it apart from a deck that has finite dmg, so is in theory able to be outhealed/armored.

So i think it really helps challenging the interpretations until we find a good definition/understanding we can (hopefully) all accept and use.

Meaning in terms of playstyle Questmage is pretty much a control deck as it does not aim to win, but rather to stay alive in general - until it assembles it´s wincondition.

And that Wincondition would be a combination of Tempo and Burn (with an asterisk for being potentially infinite).

9

Easiest one to define: Midrange is a “curvestone” deck. It aims to play a solid 1-2-3-4-5-6 etc. drop, on curve.

This. Trying to get everyone to agree on archetype definitions NEVER works, it has been proven many times over the years. So I will just sit in the corner with my :popcorn: watching the discussion (d)evolve from here.

2 Likes
10

Again, these terms have existing definitions and are all on the Magic the Gathering wiki. I can’t link it for some reason, but they’re there.

They’re fairly broad definitions, but they’re mostly specific.

11

this is not mtg. and while there are similarities mtg really is a vastly different game.

1 Like
12

But that’s where the terms control/aggro/midrange all come from. If we’re using MTG terms, the definitions are all the same.

And from a brief perusal, they are the same.

For Reference:

Midrange decks are aggressive decks that flip the standard aggro-control deck archetype by attempting to control the early game, then closing the game with efficient creatures in the mid to late game.

Describes Midrange Hunter to a tee.

Aggro deck is a Magic: The Gathering term for an aggressive deck which attempts to win the game through persistent, quick damage dealing. Usually these decks will use small, hard-hitting creatures to win the game.

That’s more or less what Face Hunter does.

Combo deck is a term for a deck of Magic: The Gathering cards that aims to win the game using a relatively small number of cards that instantly or very quickly win the game when combined (hence the name combo.

Freeze Mage is a two turn combo that ends the game. (Alexstrasza → 15 damage from Fireball/Fireball/Frostbolt)

A Burn deck is a deck strategy that uses direct damage spells as its primary win-condition.

This is obviously quest mage and really any spell damage mage/shaman deck.

A control deck is a term for a deck of cards that aims to control the opponent’s cards and progression with, ideally, the end result where one has full control of everything that is done during the game. Control decks typically get their edge through card advantage. They are very powerful and present in virtually every format in the game.

These terms are absolutely applicable, and since this is the source of those terms, if you wanna know what they mean. This is what they mean and historically why they were used.

3 Likes
13

but that is exactly the problem, without us setting proper definitions but using some broad terms from another game we only end up in those circles where no agreement on what is even said can ever be found thus fruitless “discussions” if a deck should be coined control or combo or “henry thorough the 3rd”
instead of us really looking at a deck, understanding what it does and being able to put that in to precise language.

14

The biggest problem is that there is literally no real reason a combo deck can’t also be a control deck. Most of the best control wincons in MTG are combos because they are efficient. So where do we draw the line that stops a combo deck from being a control deck in Hearthstone specifically?

1 Like
15

Because most combo decks don’t aim to control anything. They usually just stall until they can blow up their opponent.

16

if you look at my definitions that is not a problem as combo is the wincondition and control is the way you play it. There is absolutely no problem with using both terms to describe a deck properly, quite the opposite with those terms most combodecks play out as control decks aswell.

1 Like
17

OK but that is literally a form of control. Currently one of the best control decks in Standard for MTG is a UR deck with a combo finisher granting it extra turns to close out the game.

1 Like
18

and that is the big issue with using “control” as a very broad term.
the decks you mean would be more specifically control decks that aim to win with value i think.
whereas a combodeck is often a control deck that aims to win with a combo.

19

tempo can be aggro. Wild secret mage is aggro and tempo.
Control can be aggro too.

20

They can’t really. Aggro is about doing pieces of damage bit by bit to defeat an opponent. Control is about… controlling the game. Tempo is about making high impact tempo plays (which is almost the opposite of aggro).