I find it funny all these people mentioning “aggro” decks all the time. It’s hillarious, kinda, for me to read that.
I’ve played the game since 2014 and I can guarantee you not a single aggro deck exists in this meta.
Well, there is one, murloc shaman, but it’s awful, and not worth mentioning.
If you can tell me, seriously, that a pally deck which can at best finish bad players on turn 7 is aggro deck, then you’re probably a new player who hasn’t played this game before when people used to insta concede turn 2 or turn 3 against true aggro decks. Heck, even a full-blown control warrior can finish you turn 9 nowadays. So much for aggro then
There ARE no aggro decks. There haven’t been for quite some time. That’s an issue.
Excavate pally plays like a pure tempo in higher ranks, at best it’s aggro-control.
treant druid was sorta aggro-ish, but against better players you still had to tempo it out. And then it got destroyed because it was too close to true aggro to make it.
Sludge warlock can be aggro if it hits the good mulligan, but then again, one of the most important cards in the deck, Sludge on wheels, is a pure tempo destroyer and much too slow for a pure aggro deck. An aggro deck used to deliver 15 dmg on turn 3, not prepare a turn 6 play. It’s close to being aggro, but it’s also close to getting nerfed.
I strongly disagree. I think a good definition for aggro is “designed to be played with the intent to win in as few turns as possible.” I think a good definition for tempo is nothing because screw tempo as a term describing decks, it basically just means pretentious aggro that thinks it isn’t aggro because it’s tricksy.
But I am curious what the heck you even mean by aggro and tempo.
It’s not a good definition. Average turn per game for Pally is >7
In a meta where a pure control deck, Odyn Warrior, finsihes you turn 9, you can’t possibly call such a deck pure aggro.
Where do you fit all the other archetypes then?
As I said, closest to aggro we had in last 4-5 months was treant druid and now sludge warlock, which both have tempo characteristics. You can’t just mindlessly drop minions every turn. You have to plan combos playing around removal and trade for board control.
Compare that to face hunter, mech shaman, aggro shamans from before… pirate warriors… An aggro deck is the one where you just ignore board and go straight to face. You don’t have combos. Every card in your deck synergizes with the intent of finishing the game ASAP.
You don’t run 5 mana cost removals that’s for sure.
Why did you just copy and paste this response from another thread when its wrong? This whole debacle of how a player defines what is a tempo vs control vs aggro deck is clearly to blame for this. You can nitpick any definition of what makes an aggro deck aggro but aggro is still very much alive.
That’s just it. I don’t have to nitpick a definition to prove my point.
My experience as a pure aggro player from 2014-2018 should suffice.
I’ve hit Legend with so many pure aggro decks and I guarantee you, none of the decks on the ladder now are pure aggro. If there was any, I’d be playing it and laughing instead of writing this.
If you’re telling me a deck that runs 2x Keeper’s Strenght, 5 mana removal, can be called aggro, then I’m telling you that you are a new player. It’s that easy.
Aggro decks do NOT need to run 5 mana cost removals. Turn 5 is where they deliver lethal.
Aggro decks will always exist. They are simply the quickest deck in a meta. They are not in anyway tied to how many turns a game lasts, thats your wrong definition of aggro. They are simply the quickest to kill (or lose).
Before, the quickest deck in the meta used to mean something. Used to mean it’s quick. Now, you’re telling me a deck which is only 1 turn on average faster than a control deck is an aggro deck?
Nah.
The game has evolved, all right, but in a way which literally deleted a pure aggro archetype.
Its still the most aggressive deck. Therefore it is, by definition outside of your wrong one, aggro. There has always been control decks 1 turn slower than aggro decks as well.
You are simply clueless on assigning archetypes to decks, as are most people. For example, aggro-control IS, BY DEFINITION, a tempo deck.
If only anecdotes were infallibe and satisfactory.
Because aggro decks aren’t killing you as fast as pirate shadow priest or even shaman doesn’t mean they aren’t aggro. What do you consider something to be “pure aggro”? The overarching playstyle is all the same. They are actively trying to kill you as fast as possible with the least amount of turns within reasonbefore you can play high mana cards.
It has too much board removal to call it pure aggro. It’s by definition aggro-control (or tempo) because you run the removal. You actually control the board. If you don’t, you lose.
Aggro decks don’t need to control the board. They control your HP bar.
A tempo deck is an aggro/control hybrid. Always has been, always will be. You dopnt get to change the definitons that were present since MTG created them in the 90’s
Altair, I fundamentally disagree with you on what aggro even means.
Here’s what I say: in every single matchup that isn’t a mirror, one deck has inevitability, that is, it will win if the game goes long enough. The other deck aims to win through opposition before the game goes too long. So in every single game of Hearthstone, one deck is the aggro and the other is the control. It’s a relativistic concept and not an absolutist one.
There’s literally no such thing as a meta where aggro doesn’t exist. There are only metas where aggro doesn’t look the way you expect it to (in this case, stupid).
As I said, aggro decks never had removal in their decks. They didn’t control the board. They just hit you face and put you on a timer. You don’t have those decks anymore.
Just because a deck is faster than the slowest one on the ladder, it’s not automatically aggro.
That’s just it. That’s not true, because in that case, there wouldn’t be a need for deck archetypes at all.
You wouldn’t have for example Attrition/Mill decks, because in every game one of the decks would be an attrition deck (because it can go longer than the opponent deck).
Your “relativity of archetypes” removes the need for categorization of deck archetypes at all. And if you don’t need the archetypes at all, then you don’t need to use the word “aggro” at all - because guess what? That’s an archetype.
And you don’t need archetypes. It’s all relative.
And that’s why you are wrong.
Either you accept that there IS NO aggro anymore, or you don’t use the word “aggro” at all, because archetypes don’t exist, and it’s all relative.
Either way, you’re not supposed to call a deck aggro anymore.
This is entirely wrong. I’ve been in top legend ranks for 4 years and I know quite well the deck lists I’ve ran. You never had board removal. You had a ping or two, that’s it. And you had one card (silence or taunt removal) which you had to save for your lethal or you’re doomed.
So no point in answering to you anymore, if you’re just gonna say something like it’s christian dogma.