this Is not about the powerlevel,After i started playing wild (bless dirty rat) i was able to sneak quite a few wins vs at least OTKs.
So,please before you start typing unrelated nonsense without using your brain take time to let the previous sentence sink in.
Anyway there has been a lot of talk about these archetypes,so now i wanted to make you understand why I (and maybe others too) think they are Simply unhealthy for the game and i wanted feedback on whether you agree or disagree AND WHY
It's actually quite simple: they are the ONLY archetypes that force another to change its playstyle completely (from slow to SMORC in this case) which Is something that I and (I think) others too really don't enjoy.
Just think about this,i challenge you to name any other decktype that forces another to completely flip its playstyle
Could It Be aggro? (Face,tempo,zoo and others) No,Anyone else vs these decks has to try to either stall and Survive (control), win the board hard (midrange/tempo) or outSMORC them(aggro/face)
Maybe midrange? Nope, vs midrange as an aggro deck you try to bury them by turn 4 anyway, as control you still want to whipe the board,Survive,play your value stuff (Also depends on what kind of midrange deck It Is you face) and as midrange you Just follow whatever your gameplan is
Is It control then? I don't think so Brother: as aggro ME STILL GO FACE, as midrange you either get the board and beat them early or try to win through Constant midrange pressure or even in the Long run (depending on how greedy your midrange deck Is) and as control you still follow your gameplan trying to get rid of their threats and play your own "big" stuff
I didn't include combo/mill/infinite in any of these as nothing changes for them:
1)survive
2)draw
3)play the combo or whatever
4)win
If any of these fails you lose,otherwise you win
Also there Is the factor of putting people on a clock which i Also find super irritating but thanks to the all powerful rat there Is some Hope to counter it so you May or May not count It as an argument i don't really care
I understand that you do not like Aggro, midrange, control or combo, because they all have their own playstyle. This makes no sense to me at all. Different archetypes with different win conditions is what makes the game stay interesting. Don't play the game if you don't like archetypes. What did you expect when you startet playing?
Control IS "react to your opponent's plays, each of them".
In other words, Control is THE reactive archetype. The only one. Aggro, Midrange, Mill/Combo, all of them carry a wincondition of their own. Control does not. Control's wincondition is a negative one, the negation of the opponent's wincondition.
Incidentally, and typically, Control ends up adjusting itself around playing slow in order to react to Aggro and Midrange, because those 2 together make up for the vast majoity of the meta.
But since you chose to react, instead of proacting, it is your call to build a fitting deck for the purpose. The fact you can't Control everything at the same time (exactly as in life) is just an inhirent problem of your choice.
PS: Control forces an Aggro player to play around board-clears and removals, so also that point is invalid.
I understand that you do not like Aggro, midrange, control or combo, because they all have their own playstyle. This makes no sense to me at all. Different archetypes with different win conditions is what makes the game stay interesting. Don't play the game if you don't like archetypes. What did you expect when you startet playing?
I see you didn't read,good good
T.l.d.r. I don't like combo/otk/mill as they are the only archetypes that force another (slow/control in this case) to change it's playstyle completely Just because some random guy they are playing against decided to put Jade Idol or mecha'thun in a deck
Control IS "react to your opponent's plays, each of them".
In other words, Control is THE reactive archetype. The only one. Aggro, Midrange, Mill/Combo, all of them carry a wincondition of their own. Control does not. Control's wincondition is a negative one, the negation of the opponent's wincondition.
Incidentally, and typically, Control ends up adjusting itself around playing slow in order to react to Aggro and Midrange, because those 2 together make up for the vast majoity of the meta.
Mill/OTK is the flaw in that system, because they do not threat the board. Their board is actually slower than yours, but they traded that in order to win in other ways, and you have a hard time adapting to them.
So the only way to win (exept for heavy rng from rat) Is to completely go proactive instead of reactive,my point exactly,no other archetype forces you to play in a way you didn't want to and that's bad and unfun
Control IS "react to your opponent's plays, each of them".
In other words, Control is THE reactive archetype. The only one. Aggro, Midrange, Mill/Combo, all of them carry a wincondition of their own. Control does not. Control's wincondition is a negative one, the negation of the opponent's wincondition.
Incidentally, and typically, Control ends up adjusting itself around playing slow in order to react to Aggro and Midrange, because those 2 together make up for the vast majoity of the meta.
Mill/OTK is the flaw in that system, because they do not threat the board. Their board is actually slower than yours, but they traded that in order to win in other ways, and you have a hard time adapting to them.
So the only way to win (exept for heavy rng from rat) Is to completely go proactive instead of reactive,my point exactly,no other archetype forces you to play in a way you didn't want to and that's bad and unfun
Nope. you didn't even read what I wrote.
Anyone else tries to win proactively against another proactive opponent. Be it with board, or collecting all the Combo pieces together, or forcing into Fatigue.
YOU CHOSE TO BE REACTIVE. You are the different one. Not Mill/OTK.
You are entitled of that choice ofc, but you are not entitled to choose its consequences.
I hate playing vs a combo deck but combo decks hate playing vs aggro. it takes skill to beat the unfavourable match and that's how HS is played. u wanted to always play vs aggro so u could win 70% of the time? well then everybody would resort to control. everybody resorts to control? then combo is the way to go but wait….then i should play aggro to beat combo.
u see the game is like this u just pick ur deck and roll with it
A control deck is build to react to the opponent's deck/cards. The way your control deck is build is therefore dependent on the metagame. If the metagame involves a strong combo deck, you should add some specific disrupt tools when building your control deck. Trying to kill the combo player before he plays out his combo is a backup plan if the control player is unsuccesfull in disrupting the combo. Changing the way your control deck is build/played based on the decks you are facing is a defining feature of a control deck.
They are essential decks in keeping balance. If you don't change your game plan depending on what you are playing in most situations you are doing it wrong. Control decks are greedy, which is a fine way to play. If you are encountering too many combo decks then tech in anti-combo options. I would also take this moment to point out there are 2 new cards, one for spell disruption and one for creature disruption for combos.
These decks are extremely delicate and they are subject to milling or tech cards just disassembling them in one move. Not including the tech cards is a move that you do either because either you aren't encountering combo or you are being greedier on certain matchups to have a lesser chance to win on others.
So yeah, I disagree with basically your entire premise on them being unhealthy. It's a different play style and you need to adjust how you play to counter it or adjust your deck. I think you are saying you want others to change the way they play so you can play the way you want to.
They are essential decks in keeping balance. If you don't change your game plan depending on what you are playing in most situations you are doing it wrong. Control decks are greedy, which is a fine way to play. If you are encountering too many combo decks then tech in anti-combo options. I would also take this moment to point out there are 2 new cards, one for spell disruption and one for creature disruption for combos.
These decks are extremely delicate and they are subject to milling or tech cards just disassembling them in one move. Not including the tech cards is a move that you do either because either you aren't encountering combo or you are being greedier on certain matchups to have a lesser chance to win on others.
So yeah, I disagree with basically your entire premise on them being unhealthy. It's a different play style and you need to adjust how you play to counter it or adjust your deck. I think you are saying you want others to change the way they play so you can play the way you want to.
All i'm saying Is that no archetype should force another to completely flip its playstyle (MAYBE this doesn't apply as much to OTK because of rat but as far as infinite/mill decks go SMORC is still the only way) as for the part where you Need to build a control deck to be reactive to combos too that's fine but still It mostly comes down to (at best) a 50/50 After arbitrarly playing a 1 mana 2/6 taunt,even there it's Just and hail Mary based on 1 card and losing to that feels Just as bad as losing to an OTK EVEN if both sides played to maximize/minimize the chanches
1. All of your points are subjective, but sure i can understand why someone feels that way
2. If Combo decks didnt exist there would be no coutner to control decks, if there is no scissors in rock-paper-scissors everyone would play Paper (control)
I understand that you do not like Aggro, midrange, control or combo, because they all have their own playstyle. This makes no sense to me at all. Different archetypes with different win conditions is what makes the game stay interesting. Don't play the game if you don't like archetypes. What did you expect when you startet playing?
I see you didn't read,good good
T.l.d.r. I don't like combo/otk/mill as they are the only archetypes that force another (slow/control in this case) to change it's playstyle completely Just because some random guy they are playing against decided to put Jade Idol or mecha'thun in a deck
First off, it's wild... You'll always have less then fun OP combos in that format.
Anyways I don't understand your argument. You always have to assess what type of deck you think the opponent is playing at the very start of the game and mulligan accordingly. Do the correct plays based on what the enemy reveal and you've done all you could.
It's not like you would sit and think "oh, if only i did that instead" if you get matched up versus some aggro deck believing it's an OTK one and therefore not going for super aggressive mulligan in order to pull those few early drops/removals in your deck you need in order not to lose before turn 5. At least OTK decks are slow and if your deck is equipped to deal with it you have a more opportunities to have an impact on how the game progress.
I understand that you do not like Aggro, midrange, control or combo, because they all have their own playstyle. This makes no sense to me at all. Different archetypes with different win conditions is what makes the game stay interesting. Don't play the game if you don't like archetypes. What did you expect when you startet playing?
I see you didn't read,good good
T.l.d.r. I don't like combo/otk/mill as they are the only archetypes that force another (slow/control in this case) to change it's playstyle completely Just because some random guy they are playing against decided to put Jade Idol or mecha'thun in a deck
I did read your rant, but you just stated what different decks have as a win condition. And since you didn't clearly state what the issue is I misunderstood it. My bad.
As others have said, your premise is still wrong. In every game there is a control and a beatdown. You have to identify your role to win that game. In most games, the roles are pretty clear and ratrely change. E.g. in control against aggro the aggro player will almost always turn out ot be the beatdown and has to win before the control player stabilizes. In aggro vs. aggro, the roles can change multiple times during a game. Already your base assumption that the gameplan never changes is debunked for the aggro player that has to catch up (mostly the one who goes second). Same is control vs. control. Both decks usually win by depleting the opponent of threats, but sometimes you simply can get a sudden tempo lead ( Bloodreaver Gul'dan 's Battlecry, Frostmourne , etc) and you win the game by aggression. In conclusion, in every matchup your playstyle can change but mostly it does in games against similar decks.
as to combo decks, they are mostly built as control decks with an inevitable win condition. They stall and control the board with mostly the same card pool as control decks use to stall and control the board. A non-combo control deck can be built to counter that strategy. You did it yourself with Dirty Rat. Other counter cards can be Loatheb , DeathlordSkulking Geist or the cards from the coming set. As long as you built your control deck correspondingly, you do not have to change your playstyle, because you will be able to deal with the (now alleged) inevitabilty. I.e. you pull out Mecha'thun with dirty rat and kill or silence him.
Tl;dr: You yourself already use cards that allow you to play the control role against combo decks. You did not have to change your reactive playstyle against these decks, but will try to counter their wincon. Your base assumption is false.
You can slap an archetype tag on every deck in the game, but they all play out differently with their own strengths and weaknesses. While otk, mill and infinite decks probably have similar matchup percentages against the other archetypes, they can each require different strategies and/or tech cards to counter effectively. I love this aspect of the game.
I play mostly control decks and my answer to otk/mill/infinite decks is almost never SMORC. Control decks aren't designed to SMORC so I personally don't think that should be plan A. I don't play much Wild so maybe that is the only viable answer but I've found using tech cards to be fine.
Having playstyles that force certain decks to change their game plan makes the game more healthy imo and much more interesting. I don't want a HS that is as scripted as you can get (ie where decks more or less play the same against everything each time).
This game should be about having to sometimes think, not going on auto pilot playing control always as control, aggro always as aggro, midrange always as midrange, or OTK always as otk.
Also, it should be noted that many aggro vs OTK MU's require that the OTK player to sometimes commit needed combo pieces to just not lose, thus making them play always like a shadow of a control deck that tries to outlast the aggro player before stabilizing. Food for thought.
Let me open with:
this Is not about the powerlevel,After i started playing wild (bless dirty rat) i was able to sneak quite a few wins vs at least OTKs.
So,please before you start typing unrelated nonsense without using your brain take time to let the previous sentence sink in.
Anyway there has been a lot of talk about these archetypes,so now i wanted to make you understand why I (and maybe others too) think they are Simply unhealthy for the game and i wanted feedback on whether you agree or disagree AND WHY
It's actually quite simple: they are the ONLY archetypes that force another to change its playstyle completely (from slow to SMORC in this case) which Is something that I and (I think) others too really don't enjoy.
Just think about this,i challenge you to name any other decktype that forces another to completely flip its playstyle
Could It Be aggro? (Face,tempo,zoo and others) No,Anyone else vs these decks has to try to either stall and Survive (control), win the board hard (midrange/tempo) or outSMORC them(aggro/face)
Maybe midrange? Nope, vs midrange as an aggro deck you try to bury them by turn 4 anyway, as control you still want to whipe the board,Survive,play your value stuff (Also depends on what kind of midrange deck It Is you face) and as midrange you Just follow whatever your gameplan is
Is It control then? I don't think so Brother: as aggro ME STILL GO FACE, as midrange you either get the board and beat them early or try to win through Constant midrange pressure or even in the Long run (depending on how greedy your midrange deck Is) and as control you still follow your gameplan trying to get rid of their threats and play your own "big" stuff
I didn't include combo/mill/infinite in any of these as nothing changes for them:
1)survive
2)draw
3)play the combo or whatever
4)win
If any of these fails you lose,otherwise you win
Also there Is the factor of putting people on a clock which i Also find super irritating but thanks to the all powerful rat there Is some Hope to counter it so you May or May not count It as an argument i don't really care
I understand that you do not like Aggro, midrange, control or combo, because they all have their own playstyle. This makes no sense to me at all. Different archetypes with different win conditions is what makes the game stay interesting. Don't play the game if you don't like archetypes. What did you expect when you startet playing?
You are wrong about what Control is.
Control IS NOT "play slow".
Control IS "react to your opponent's plays, each of them".
In other words, Control is THE reactive archetype. The only one. Aggro, Midrange, Mill/Combo, all of them carry a wincondition of their own. Control does not. Control's wincondition is a negative one, the negation of the opponent's wincondition.
Incidentally, and typically, Control ends up adjusting itself around playing slow in order to react to Aggro and Midrange, because those 2 together make up for the vast majoity of the meta.
But since you chose to react, instead of proacting, it is your call to build a fitting deck for the purpose. The fact you can't Control everything at the same time (exactly as in life) is just an inhirent problem of your choice.
PS: Control forces an Aggro player to play around board-clears and removals, so also that point is invalid.
I see you didn't read,good good
T.l.d.r. I don't like combo/otk/mill as they are the only archetypes that force another (slow/control in this case) to change it's playstyle completely Just because some random guy they are playing against decided to put Jade Idol or mecha'thun in a deck
So the only way to win (exept for heavy rng from rat) Is to completely go proactive instead of reactive,my point exactly,no other archetype forces you to play in a way you didn't want to and that's bad and unfun
Nope. you didn't even read what I wrote.
Anyone else tries to win proactively against another proactive opponent. Be it with board, or collecting all the Combo pieces together, or forcing into Fatigue.
YOU CHOSE TO BE REACTIVE. You are the different one. Not Mill/OTK.
You are entitled of that choice ofc, but you are not entitled to choose its consequences.
I hate playing vs a combo deck but combo decks hate playing vs aggro. it takes skill to beat the unfavourable match and that's how HS is played. u wanted to always play vs aggro so u could win 70% of the time? well then everybody would resort to control. everybody resorts to control? then combo is the way to go but wait….then i should play aggro to beat combo.
u see the game is like this u just pick ur deck and roll with it
i think that mill decks should be slower. and if there is something that should be nerfed its sap and vanish these 2 cards should be reworked.
A control deck is build to react to the opponent's deck/cards. The way your control deck is build is therefore dependent on the metagame. If the metagame involves a strong combo deck, you should add some specific disrupt tools when building your control deck. Trying to kill the combo player before he plays out his combo is a backup plan if the control player is unsuccesfull in disrupting the combo. Changing the way your control deck is build/played based on the decks you are facing is a defining feature of a control deck.
Man let's talk about priests! They are a finger in the ass.
if we talking about unhealthy things in game
we should really talk about Barnes a card that have 90% winrate in big priest accordin to hsreplay when kept in opening hand
there is nothing unhealthier tahn losing game on turn 4
ps:i hate barnes i never stop complaing about this card
Me too. Thank you man.
They are essential decks in keeping balance. If you don't change your game plan depending on what you are playing in most situations you are doing it wrong. Control decks are greedy, which is a fine way to play. If you are encountering too many combo decks then tech in anti-combo options. I would also take this moment to point out there are 2 new cards, one for spell disruption and one for creature disruption for combos.
These decks are extremely delicate and they are subject to milling or tech cards just disassembling them in one move. Not including the tech cards is a move that you do either because either you aren't encountering combo or you are being greedier on certain matchups to have a lesser chance to win on others.
So yeah, I disagree with basically your entire premise on them being unhealthy. It's a different play style and you need to adjust how you play to counter it or adjust your deck. I think you are saying you want others to change the way they play so you can play the way you want to.
All i'm saying Is that no archetype should force another to completely flip its playstyle (MAYBE this doesn't apply as much to OTK because of rat but as far as infinite/mill decks go SMORC is still the only way) as for the part where you Need to build a control deck to be reactive to combos too that's fine but still It mostly comes down to (at best) a 50/50 After arbitrarly playing a 1 mana 2/6 taunt,even there it's Just and hail Mary based on 1 card and losing to that feels Just as bad as losing to an OTK EVEN if both sides played to maximize/minimize the chanches
1. All of your points are subjective, but sure i can understand why someone feels that way
2. If Combo decks didnt exist there would be no coutner to control decks, if there is no scissors in rock-paper-scissors everyone would play Paper (control)
I like how the OP opened a topic and then answers reiterating his own point even after he's been shown his premises are essentially wrong.
First off, it's wild... You'll always have less then fun OP combos in that format.
Anyways I don't understand your argument. You always have to assess what type of deck you think the opponent is playing at the very start of the game and mulligan accordingly. Do the correct plays based on what the enemy reveal and you've done all you could.
It's not like you would sit and think "oh, if only i did that instead" if you get matched up versus some aggro deck believing it's an OTK one and therefore not going for super aggressive mulligan in order to pull those few early drops/removals in your deck you need in order not to lose before turn 5. At least OTK decks are slow and if your deck is equipped to deal with it you have a more opportunities to have an impact on how the game progress.
I did read your rant, but you just stated what different decks have as a win condition. And since you didn't clearly state what the issue is I misunderstood it. My bad.
As others have said, your premise is still wrong. In every game there is a control and a beatdown. You have to identify your role to win that game. In most games, the roles are pretty clear and ratrely change. E.g. in control against aggro the aggro player will almost always turn out ot be the beatdown and has to win before the control player stabilizes. In aggro vs. aggro, the roles can change multiple times during a game. Already your base assumption that the gameplan never changes is debunked for the aggro player that has to catch up (mostly the one who goes second). Same is control vs. control. Both decks usually win by depleting the opponent of threats, but sometimes you simply can get a sudden tempo lead ( Bloodreaver Gul'dan 's Battlecry, Frostmourne , etc) and you win the game by aggression. In conclusion, in every matchup your playstyle can change but mostly it does in games against similar decks.
as to combo decks, they are mostly built as control decks with an inevitable win condition. They stall and control the board with mostly the same card pool as control decks use to stall and control the board. A non-combo control deck can be built to counter that strategy. You did it yourself with Dirty Rat. Other counter cards can be Loatheb , Deathlord Skulking Geist or the cards from the coming set. As long as you built your control deck correspondingly, you do not have to change your playstyle, because you will be able to deal with the (now alleged) inevitabilty. I.e. you pull out Mecha'thun with dirty rat and kill or silence him.
Tl;dr: You yourself already use cards that allow you to play the control role against combo decks. You did not have to change your reactive playstyle against these decks, but will try to counter their wincon. Your base assumption is false.
You can slap an archetype tag on every deck in the game, but they all play out differently with their own strengths and weaknesses. While otk, mill and infinite decks probably have similar matchup percentages against the other archetypes, they can each require different strategies and/or tech cards to counter effectively. I love this aspect of the game.
I play mostly control decks and my answer to otk/mill/infinite decks is almost never SMORC. Control decks aren't designed to SMORC so I personally don't think that should be plan A. I don't play much Wild so maybe that is the only viable answer but I've found using tech cards to be fine.
Having playstyles that force certain decks to change their game plan makes the game more healthy imo and much more interesting. I don't want a HS that is as scripted as you can get (ie where decks more or less play the same against everything each time).
This game should be about having to sometimes think, not going on auto pilot playing control always as control, aggro always as aggro, midrange always as midrange, or OTK always as otk.
Also, it should be noted that many aggro vs OTK MU's require that the OTK player to sometimes commit needed combo pieces to just not lose, thus making them play always like a shadow of a control deck that tries to outlast the aggro player before stabilizing. Food for thought.