Just because a deck trades doesn't mean its not AGGRO. If thats the case, then face hunter must be a tempo deck. Check your facts, zoo is most definitally an aggro deck.
It's literally in the name why face decks are "aggro" decks and Zoo is not. It pushes face aggressively. I explained why Zoo is more a tempo oriented deck than anything else. Like I said, it's just VERY efficient at what it does (in particular due to the lower curve and hero power), so you will most likely have excess damage available.
If a control deck draws its early game and value minions perfectly and kills you by turn 7, you wouldn't call it "aggro" out of nowhere either.
An aggressive deck usually intends to take the board as early as possible, usually using granular minions, sometimes spells as in the case of Shaman. Contrary to popular belief an aggressive deck doesn't necessarily have to only focus on going face, as is seen with Zoo. Zoo is an aggressive deck as it takes advantage of granular minions to take the board and this early board advantage will often allow the Zoo deck to push lots of face damage while, at the same time, getting rid of your opponents minions with effective trades and minion buffs.
Tempo decks are much more defined in their abuse of tempo mechanics, using cheap cards that let you kill your opponent's board while at the same time developing your own. This is most obviously seen in the form of Weapons, allowing you to sacrifice health to kill a minion and develop a board, and cards like Flamewaker which are much more obvious.
In general, Aggro tries to kill and Control tries to survive. Those are the primary archetypes and their roles.
Other classifications are typically just variations on the two. For instance, Midrange tends to play Control in the early game and then switch to Aggro when it has gained enough advantage. Tempo is very similar to Midrange, but tends to focus on unique value plays such as Rogue's combo effects or Mage's spell synergies. Hybrid is just fast Midrange, or heavier Aggro. Combo is a little harder to classify since it has more to do with the win condition than the style of play, but it's usually just Control.
You can't simply define a deck by the turn it wins on.
Aggro decks generally play a low curve, trying to control the board early in order to gain a larger advantage, taking opportunities to get in more damage. Aggro decks won't play any mid game minions, and instead will play cards in order to close out the game (Doomguard). Just because a deck trades doesn't mean its not an aggro deck (zoo is an aggro deck people, just admit it)
Tempo decks are similar to aggro decks, but have a slightly different curve, usually with a couple of late game cards. The main idea with tempo decks is to take a huge early lead with good tempo cards, in order to significantly improve their position in the midgame. A tempo deck will be so far ahead that it is very hard to come back, and if you can't kill an opponent in the midgame, you have late game minions to finish off your opponent
Midrange decks have a curve that is lower at 1-2 drops, but has lots of 3-6 drops, and a few 7+ drops. Unlike a control deck, a midrange deck relies on most midrange minions to win the game, rather than lots of late game cards. Midrange gives up the ability to gain maximum tempo in the early game in order to play very powerful midgame creatures. Midrange generally control the board early, then wins with big, powerful midgame/lategame.
Control decks use more utility than other decks, relying more on spells to control the board in the early to mid game. Control generally wins with either one specific win conition (Elise) or many powerful late game minions. The main difference between Control and midrange is that control runs less early game drops.
Combo decks are really easy to define, and most combo decks are mainly designed around heavy synergy to do something huge in one turn, often swinging the game in their favor, killing your opponent, or setting up lethal.
Was going to take the time to do a write-up on the terminologies as I see them. But this pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.
The biggest flaws comes when trying to define a deck as control only because it requires board control to win. Typically these are also the people who say that you can't really define decks into categories.
The 'this decks has to win by turn x' is a good initial analysis in general, but it relies heavily on the matchup, so can't really be used for categorical purposes but is helpful.
Aggressive: Decks that attempt to win by applying pressure via tempo using a proactive strategy. Sometimes this is accomplished by playing a very low mana curve and attacking primarily face (Face Hunter), sometimes it's done by playing higher quality or more early game minions than your opponent and buffing minions for favorable trades/board states (Zoo, Paladin). Burst damage in the form of spells, buffs and charge minions are common game finishers. Sometimes these decks curve up higher, like the recently rotated Secret Paladin curving up to 8 mana cost cards.
Midrange: Decks that try to win through value by carrying high quality cards up through the mana curve. Still a proactive strategy. Looks to beat aggressive deck by 2-for-1 trades and removal early game, then by having higher quality cards late game. Looks to beat control by applying consistent pressure through the game, and bringing more value cards than control can remove. Some examples are Hunter, Patron Warrior, and Midrange Paladin. These decks can slant towards aggression or control as the play environment dictates.
Control: Wins by disrupting the opposing strategy, gaining card advantage through early/midgame, then finishing the game with superior card quality and quantity. Looks to beat aggro by answering major threats. Looks to beat midrange by baiting favorable exchanges.
Combo: Wins by generating value/tempo/card advantage via card interaction. The best examples of this are Patron and Miracle Rogue. These decks can be aggressive, midrange, or control oriented depending on the specific cards that support them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can dance on the head of a pin as well.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In general, Aggro tries to kill and Control tries to survive. Those are the primary archetypes and their roles.
Other classifications are typically just variations on the two. For instance, Midrange tends to play Control in the early game and then switch to Aggro when it has gained enough advantage. Tempo is very similar to Midrange, but tends to focus on unique value plays such as Rogue's combo effects or Mage's spell synergies. Hybrid is just fast Midrange, or heavier Aggro. Combo is a little harder to classify since it has more to do with the win condition than the style of play, but it's usually just Control.
not all who wander are lost
But this pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.
Typically these are also the people who say that you can't really define decks into categories.
Aggro: Aggro shaman, Face Hunter, Smorcadin, Face Warror; Machinegun mage, Fel reaver-druid, MurLock, Aggro rogue.
Tempo: Mech mage, Zoo, Tempo mage, some rogues, token druid
Midrange: New Patron W, Midrange pal, Old druid, Midrange hunter, totem shaman, evolve shaman, raptor-rogue, demonlock
Control: (control) priest, warrior, echo-mage, ramp-druid, astral duid, reincarnate shaman, feign-death hunter, handlock, renolock.
Combo: Freeze mage, Anyfindin, Maly/Leeroy/Oil-miracle rogue, old patron warrior, otk worgan/giant warrior.
About right?
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
You disappoint me. I thought you made this thread to reprimand all the players calling any deck with an early game "aggro".
My legendary count excluding adventure legendaries, dupes and old murk eye: 40
$$$ spent on this game: 0
Check out my card collection: http://www.hearthpwn.com/members/MCFUser175154/collection
I can dance on the head of a pin as well.