I did say in my post that i dislike control decks that just clear boards like dk there are some skill intensive aggro decks but not alot if im honest.
My stance is aggro where you just pump out stats and control where you just clear boards are not skill intensive at all.
If the aggro deck at least has to consider trading or the ultra control deck can actually switch over to start going over into offense then those kind of decks would be abit more tolerated.
Yup and then there was the insanely complex deck like cube-lock. It’s the only deck in hearthstone’s history that I know of that could play as:
It was just an insane meta/deck, never seen a meta that complex before and I doubt we will see one again. I really enjoyed a deck like that, that could shift between different modes with a skilled pilot.
Il be honest i did dislike the value that deck had.
Frost DK does interact with you. Like, half of the deck’s cards are minions. The ability to freeze doesn’t necessitate that the deck in question is “completely uninteractive”. Sometimes, it seems to me that the term “uninteractive” gets thrown around as a synonym for “I don’t like this thing”.
Dk is the new ‘shiny’ class/thing
So its ok
Its aslo why new cards often left untouched (basicly unless they cant do anything but change the new card/cards).
Like why Caria got nerfed in sunken city and not the newly buffed Collosal.
Or why Denathrius/renathel onyl got nerfed after expac was over (or Theo getting its actully impactfull nerf after expansion is over)
Likly gonna happen again with astalor in future.
Once next expansion and afte rotation being nerfed cause it no longer the new shiny toy.
Well I disagree. I call a strategy interactive when there are (reasonably competitive) options to play in a meta that would result in both players engaging in something other than a race to the face (ie burn/aggro race to see who kills who first.)
In the case of ice dk burn, it would be interactive if there existed options in the meta that were themselves t2 or higher themselves that would result in something other than a race to the face. The only interactive counter strategy is armor and health up, and the only slightly competitive decks are ramp druid and control warrior, both of which are t3 and t4.
So, there’s no viable options out there to answer stall and burn other than racing the staller. This is not interactive in my books. Racing anyone to face damage is patently linear and extremely boring, with no interaction between players, the other player may as well be an AI that you just repeatedly hit face of.
You’re leaving the part out where, like, half the deck is minions that can be interacted with. This deck isn’t like Mozaki Mage where its opponent gets OTK’d. Oftentimes, I deal more damage with minions than burn spells. In my opinion, there ought to be a place for decks like this, that utilize burn, but not to the point that it is its only function.
Interactivity is a spectrum. This isn’t at the far end of interaction, but it also isn’t at the far end of non-interaction.
I get the feeling you’re emotionally motivated in rejecting this deck. No offense intended, whatsoever. 
Yes whose purpose is purely face damage and draw and that’s it. After a certain point in the game it’s irrelevant what the board is to them as they simply plan to freeze it and stall.
Like I said, I’m perfectly ok with stall and burn decks in the meta, but to call such decks interactive is dishonest, even if they run minions for chip damage, draw or otk activation.
Also I’m lamenting the fact that stall and burn decks are perfectly ok by me to exist if there exist answers in the meta other than kill them faster than they kill you. That funnels everything into either full blown linear face race or off board otk decks that stall, exactly what we are seeing in this meta.
Maybe I play the deck incorrectly, but I’m often using my minions (and certain burn spells) to kill opposing minions. I’m typically not trying for to race to face.
Well yes this is when you go up against a deck that has a faster curve than what you can let go unanswered, ie the face race outcome I’m referring too.
I very much doubt you blow key face damage on minions in slower matchups where you eventually will just repeatedly freeze board for 2 to 5 turns.
I believe this is the reality. A deck isn’t either interactive or not. That’s a false dichotomy.
Usually, obviously, I try and save face burning spells for face. Once in awhile I’ll find myself in a situation wherein it’s necessary.
Hundred percent agree but I will add that a deck is non interactive when the only viable counter strategy to it is the default strategy of burning it faster than it burns you.
That’s fine in burn vs aggro matchups where both players go into the game playing the decks because they want to.
It’s much less fine and much less interactive when players are forced to play the face race (ie ignore everything your opponent does largely to maximize your chances by hitting face repeatedly) due to there being not enough competitive options that play strategies that can out class burn.
Classic example of this is freeze mage and control warrior in classic. Freeze mage was essentially a variant of the deck you play now, draw stall and burn, and control warrior was a deck that could stack enough armor to make freeze mage’s strategy unwinnable.
You said you believe there’s a place for such strategies, but seem to actually be opposed to this strategy (like Frost DK.)
I am only opposed to this strategy only when there are no viable counters.
Any strategy that encourages direct hand to face damage greatly minimizes the chance for the opponent being able to react, since there is no intermediate stage, it goes direct hand to face.
The only way to interact with such decks is to stack enough health and armor to make it impossible for your opponent to consistently burn you down. Such strategies are simply non competitive in this meta because the devs have largely eschewed defensive and disruptive tools in favor of draw and burn.
The default strategy of just burning them faster than you is also a strategy but leads to mind numbing linear play.
Since the only viable counter right now is to burn faster than you are burned, this is promoting very non interaction play.
I think you’re exaggerating a little bit. While Frost DK’s worst matchups are, of course, aggressive decks, other decks still have a chance. It isn’t as polarizing as you’re making it out to be. Control Paladin has a ~47% matchup versus Frost DK. Dragon Paladin, ~46%. Beast Hunter, ~48%. Control Priest, ~47%. Enrage Warrior, ~46%.
(Stats as of the latest patch in diamond → legend.)
Edit: Maybe I shouldn’t include Enrage Warrior, but you get the idea.
Every deck you listed is t3 or lower.
The obvious counter is ramp druid but that’s t3.
It’s not like I’m that against frost dk, it’s not that good a deck and I can consistentl beat it
I’m frustrated that I’m being funneled into the burn faster or die paradigm since there are no viable alternatives, and dk is part of that problem.
The point is, is that the deck is not only vulnerable to aggro.
What would “viable alternatives” look like (in your view)?
Anything t2 or higher.
I don’t mean tier. I mean in design. What would a viable alternative look like, in terms of composition?