No, it isn’t. You can play aggro within a combo deck
You can also play control in a combo deck.
You can also play midrange in a combo deck.
It cant be all three of those and still be it’s own deck type.
And it misses the point.
I don’t know why I have to continually have this argument.
It’s dirt simple math.
There were nine classes, and three decks styles.
Blizzard got greedy, made more classes, and broke the formula.
There’s a difference between a card combo and a combo deck. Equality + consecrate was a card combo used as a board clear in a control deck. Running that combo didn’t make the deck a combo deck. Every deck has at least some cards that synergize in that kind of combination.
What makes a combo deck is that one specific powerful combo, typically some sort of OTK, is the overall strategic goal of the deck. It’s not about grinding the opponent down like a true control deck, it’s about surviving long enough to draw and play the game ending combo.
What you think does not invalidate what I said.
I was taught this by actual Blizzard employees, and it gets really old having players tell me they know better repeatedly.
There were nine classes with three basic playstyles.
Blizzard printed more and broke the formula.
If you think that’s wrong, go on Twitter, and tell Mike Morhaime that.
It gets really old hearing kids who think they know more than the actual designers of HS preach.
That’s some peoples interpretation of MTG, not Hearthstone.
What Hearthstone has is two approaches.
There’s a continuum between the most extreme initiative focus and the most extreme resource focus that most decks lie within.
And it’s the two roles that players have in every game. Players must understand who is doing which role. It’s very easy to miss and it’s a huge reason people get really upset, because they don’t understand they are required to do one or the other in every deck depending on the matchup.
We live in a generation where kids think they know everything, and therefore; cannot learn anything.
I am not a card designer, but I have conversed online with the actual designers of this game, and anyone who thinks what I said is wrong needs to take it up with them, because I have paraphrased them pretty accurately.
This is a very black and white interpretation and one that usually leads to frustration in the player’s part.
A deck can be ungrindable. Then if you are thinking that you are playing a “True Scottish Control Deck” will fail to win because you have misunderstood the situation and failed to capitalize on opportunities to take the initiative and kill them.
Or a deck can be impervious to a Combo (more rare, but it does happen).
They can’t even balance archetypes let alone classes. I don’t know why anybody expects competence from team five at this point. Other than some of the QOL stuff, what are they doing right?
Well, the buffs were certainly a mistake. One that most of us foresaw. Imagine only having one expansion’s worth of cards and having multiple tier 1 decks against decks that had 2 years’ worth…
Hopefully those buffs are reverted.
Yes, but why are players using this to argue against DK and Ilidan like Mallenroh? I just countered his view, but he seems to stubborn to see his flaws.
OK, but how does this fits your topic about where you believe DK was a mistake? I admit I fail to understand your point here.
for what ive seen hes the type to think hes always right no matter what so good luck with that
I don’t really agree that DK was a mistake. The fact that DK’s archetypes mirror other archetypes is not an issue imo, there are only a few broad archetypes that are possible in the game, and every class is bound to have an iteration of it in some form or another. What matters most for class identity is that each class has a unique mechanic and flavor. And DK has both. The corpse mechanic is fun and brings a unique gameplay identity to DK: managing the death of minions as a resource. The fact that Blood DK is a control deck or Unholy is a token aggro deck is not relevant. What is relevant is that you need to use corpses as a core gameplay mechanic throughout the game, and that you do feel like you are playing as a Death Knight.
If you run a paladin, you will have Divine Shield and blessings (buffs). If you play as Rogue you will have combo spells and minions. If you play as a mage you will have… spells (a lot of them). Any of these classes can be aggro, combo or control; since these are the core gameplay roles in the game; but what differentiates them is their unique class mechanic and flavor. There has been plenty of inconsistencies and mistakes with this formula at many points with many classes (deathrattle rogue? Skeletons mage?) but DK does not hinder any of this in any way imo.
This is very similar to how classes work in WoW too. WoW (and any other mmo) has 3 core gameplay roles: dps (melee or ranged), healer and tank. It doesn’t matter how many classes they add to the game; every class will have specializations that are melee dps, ranged dps, healer or tank. This is not what matters for the identity of the class tho. What matters is that the class is designed in a flavorful way and that it adds its own interesting gameplay mechanics to the table. The same applies here. I think DK is spot on. If anything, it urges devs to spend a bit more time giving all the other classes the same amount of thought and care. The inclusion of the overheal priest mechanic indicates this is exactly what devs are thinking too.
Edit: I apologize for the brick. It seems I am incapable of writing concisely 
Begging your pardon, but what you actually did is call the designers of this game liars.
Like I said: Anytime you think I am wrong, take it up with Mike Morhaime.
He said almost the exact same thing to me that I imparted to you about four years ago.
But of course; you know more than the guy who actually created the game. smh…
The names of these ccg deck archetypes predate the creation of HS by a solid two decades. They actually originate from MtG, the big difference being that in MtG, interupt mechanics and and a lack of limitations on deck size cause the dynamic to be reversed. In MtG, control beats combo, combo beats aggro, and aggro beats control.
Yep 3x3x3. I’m fairly certain I covered that.
How does the 3x3x3 system work when Warlock had both an aggro and control in classic? And hunter had an aggro and midrange?
So did mage. What is your point?
I said there are only three fundamental playstyles in this game, and eleven does not work mathematically with 3.
Then its not 3x3x3, because some classes have multiple archetypes and cant be put into 1 category
Tell that to Ben Brode and Mike Morhaime, because I am repeating what they explained to me.
'Course all you geniuses know more than they do, that’s why you have so many gaming titles under your own belts.
You said midrange is one of the three and that combo isn’t its own archetype. That’s what I take issue with. I agree with you that it was 3x3 though, because I don’t consider midrange and tempo to be real archetypes.
Aggro and control sit at opposite ends of a continuum. Tempo and midrange strategies are just aggro decks that end their curve a little higher in order to get a little more reach and improve their matchups on board against other aggro decks, or control decks that lower their curve to try and hit the swing turn and stabilize a little bit earlier at the expense of losing a bit of their late game power.
I cannot find the video, do you have a link?