Attacker can choose which minion to kill, it's already a big deal. But attacker's ability to ignore the board and just go face is broken.
Would the game be better if it didn't allow to go face when you can attack a minion? OFC some minions would have some keyword that let go though them (Dreadsteed, for example). Taunt is left as is, because it restricts minion targeting.
Games would just be longer and a bit more boring personally. I don't see how it is in any way broken, cause it is by choice of attacking face and leaving minions which can go face themselves.
No, it's perfectly fine going face. It's a design decision which is characteristic for Hearthstone and there are numerous control decks which shows that going face is not the only viable option (of course you have to deal face damage in the end).
numerous control decks which shows that going face is not the only viable option (of course you have to deal face damage in the end).
Control decks struggle around *face* option, rather than punishing for it. While healing face is totally fine against facedecks, midrange going face with burst deal so many damage that only heavily armored warriors cound handle.
Dunno why so many people want 1 hour games.. just tech against aggro it's not that hard.. this change would kill combo and the more aggressive decks but mostly combo decks.. and it would make tempo mage the best deck cause it kills you with burn.
numerous control decks which shows that going face is not the only viable option (of course you have to deal face damage in the end).
Control decks struggle around *face* option, rather than punishing for it. While healing face is totally fine against facedecks, midrange going face with burst deal so many damage that only heavily armored warriors cound handle.
All decks have their weaknesses. That's the whole point of the game. Changing it so that minions can't hit face is ridiculous. So many decks can deal with face. I play face shaman, and have been hitting 12 last two months. But even then, I still get done in by consistent defensive decks like C'Thun Druid and Warrior, which shows that face option isn't really a struggle for control decks.
Dunno why so many people want 1 hour games.. just tech against aggro it's not that hard.. this change would kill combo and the more aggressive decks but mostly combo decks.. and it would make tempo mage the best deck cause it kills you with burn.
It's hard. I made a greedy control mage list and it doesn't stand a chance against aggro. Not because it can't survive, it does exceptionally well at that... but in the end the current aggro lists _outvalue_ you... from hand!
It's a bit of a sight when you see an aggro shaman do 20 dmg from hand (with hammer equipped) and dump 12/12 worth of stats on board in the same turn and you sit there with your pansy 7-cost monsters and useless board clears which won't even put a dent in the board he made in turn while removing 2/3rds of your life total.
Not too mention that every card played from t1-t5 is such a threat that if you can't deal with it, you lose the game. Anyone can see that if your curve is high, this simply won't add up.
Control is fairly useless, it's just for people who enjoy that kind of playstyle... it has no value outside tournaments (where you are forced to beat a varied field) and streaming (for enjoyment of the audience).
Blizzard has designed the game so the big swing turns are 1 and 2. That's how the game is.
Dunno why so many people want 1 hour games.. just tech against aggro it's not that hard.. this change would kill combo and the more aggressive decks but mostly combo decks.. and it would make tempo mage the best deck cause it kills you with burn.
It's hard. I made a greedy control mage list and it doesn't stand a chance against aggro. Not because it can't survive, but because the current aggro lists _outvalue_ you.
It's a bit of a sight when you see an aggro shaman do 20 dmg from hand (with hammer equipped) and dump 12/12 worth of stats on board in the same turn and you sit there with your pansy 7-cost monsters and useless board clears.
Control is fairly useless, it's just for people who enjoy that kind of playstyle... it has no value outside tournaments (where you are forced to beat a varied field) and streaming (for enjoyment of the audience).
Is it really though? Cause I run into a lot of control decks with my face shaman and can get played down if I don;t get the draws. Which is really all it comes down to. Yes, a lot of the time I can beat a control deck, but I can still a few times get completely owned by many a control. I wouldn't say it is useless, I would say it needs to find the right tech cards as the original commenter said, to counter them.
This sounds like the basic original anime of Yugioh...which was a sad excuse of an anime. Thank goodness they mixed it up a bit second season, Face is a needed option for games like these.
Dunno why so many people want 1 hour games.. just tech against aggro it's not that hard.. this change would kill combo and the more aggressive decks but mostly combo decks.. and it would make tempo mage the best deck cause it kills you with burn.
It's hard. I made a greedy control mage list and it doesn't stand a chance against aggro. Not because it can't survive, but because the current aggro lists _outvalue_ you.
It's a bit of a sight when you see an aggro shaman do 20 dmg from hand (with hammer equipped) and dump 12/12 worth of stats on board in the same turn and you sit there with your pansy 7-cost monsters and useless board clears.
Control is fairly useless, it's just for people who enjoy that kind of playstyle... it has no value outside tournaments (where you are forced to beat a varied field) and streaming (for enjoyment of the audience).
Is it really though? Cause I run into a lot of control decks with my face shaman and can get played down if I don;t get the draws. Which is really all it comes down to. Yes, a lot of the time I can beat a control deck, but I can still a few times get completely owned by many a control. I wouldn't say it is useless, I would say it needs to find the right tech cards as the original commenter said, to counter them.
There are extremely few tech cards available.
Warrior has a few, and have enough sustain to be able to drop a threat... but you'll struggle to top 50/50 vs aggro shamans if we assume equal player skill, my winrate is a bit positive but this has a lot to due with my opponents making errors.
If you tech specifically for that deck you might be able to increase it a bit, but you'll suffer alot in the field.
I don't mind aggro, I quite enjoy it... but I think aggro shaman is a bit too much. It really chokes a lot of classes down to only 1 (if that) decks.
Dunno why so many people want 1 hour games.. just tech against aggro it's not that hard.. this change would kill combo and the more aggressive decks but mostly combo decks.. and it would make tempo mage the best deck cause it kills you with burn.
It's hard. I made a greedy control mage list and it doesn't stand a chance against aggro. Not because it can't survive, but because the current aggro lists _outvalue_ you.
It's a bit of a sight when you see an aggro shaman do 20 dmg from hand (with hammer equipped) and dump 12/12 worth of stats on board in the same turn and you sit there with your pansy 7-cost monsters and useless board clears.
Control is fairly useless, it's just for people who enjoy that kind of playstyle... it has no value outside tournaments (where you are forced to beat a varied field) and streaming (for enjoyment of the audience).
Is it really though? Cause I run into a lot of control decks with my face shaman and can get played down if I don;t get the draws. Which is really all it comes down to. Yes, a lot of the time I can beat a control deck, but I can still a few times get completely owned by many a control. I wouldn't say it is useless, I would say it needs to find the right tech cards as the original commenter said, to counter them.
There are extremely few tech cards available.
Warrior has a few, and have enough sustain to be able to drop a threat... but you'll struggle to top 50/50 vs aggro shamans if we assume equal player skill. If you tech specifically for that deck you might be able to increase it a bit, but you'll suffer alot in the field.
I don't mind aggro, I quite enjoy it... but I think aggro shaman is a bit too much. It really chokes a lot of classes down to only 1 (if that) decks.
Is there really that few? I mean if you play around enough and find the right cards, surely any card can be considered tech? I mean not long ago people mocked having tracking and now look. It was taken to prelims in America. It is used competitively. You just have to find the right use for the cards.
Dunno why so many people want 1 hour games.. just tech against aggro it's not that hard.. this change would kill combo and the more aggressive decks but mostly combo decks.. and it would make tempo mage the best deck cause it kills you with burn.
It's hard. I made a greedy control mage list and it doesn't stand a chance against aggro. Not because it can't survive, it does exceptionally well at that... but in the end the current aggro lists _outvalue_ you... from hand!
It's a bit of a sight when you see an aggro shaman do 20 dmg from hand (with hammer equipped) and dump 12/12 worth of stats on board in the same turn and you sit there with your pansy 7-cost monsters and useless board clears which won't even put a dent in the board he made in turn while removing 2/3rds of your life total.
Not too mention that every card played from t1-t5 is such a threat that if you can't deal with it, you lose the game. Anyone can see that if your curve is high, this simply won't add up.
Control is fairly useless, it's just for people who enjoy that kind of playstyle... it has no value outside tournaments (where you are forced to beat a varied field) and streaming (for enjoyment of the audience).
Blizzard has designed the game so the big swing turns are 1 and 2. That's how the game is.
That's cause your deck is too greedy.. Greedy decks would have no weaknesses if nothing could punish them don't you think?
and control is doing well too if you look at tempo storm most top decks are midrange or aggro there's also some combo and control decks..
COntrol was dominant for the first 2 months of WOG and also in wild freeze mage (a control deck) is quite dominant one.
So once you drop your herthpwn bias on hating on aggro you realize the situation isn't that bad as people say control is totally relevant and aggro decks always tech to beat them.. so I disagree C'thun warrior, N'zoth paladin and ramp druid are seen a lot and they are control decks..
Token druids seems like a control deck to me with all that removal..
Control as "taking games to fatigue" is quite weak now that every deck can have a 10 mana finisher.
Dunno why so many people want 1 hour games.. just tech against aggro it's not that hard.. this change would kill combo and the more aggressive decks but mostly combo decks.. and it would make tempo mage the best deck cause it kills you with burn.
It's hard. I made a greedy control mage list and it doesn't stand a chance against aggro. Not because it can't survive, it does exceptionally well at that... but in the end the current aggro lists _outvalue_ you... from hand!
It's a bit of a sight when you see an aggro shaman do 20 dmg from hand (with hammer equipped) and dump 12/12 worth of stats on board in the same turn and you sit there with your pansy 7-cost monsters and useless board clears which won't even put a dent in the board he made in turn while removing 2/3rds of your life total.
Not too mention that every card played from t1-t5 is such a threat that if you can't deal with it, you lose the game. Anyone can see that if your curve is high, this simply won't add up.
Control is fairly useless, it's just for people who enjoy that kind of playstyle... it has no value outside tournaments (where you are forced to beat a varied field) and streaming (for enjoyment of the audience).
Blizzard has designed the game so the big swing turns are 1 and 2. That's how the game is.
That's cause your deck is too greedy.. Greedy decks would have no weaknesses if nothing could punish them don't you think?
and control is doing well too if you look at tempo storm most top decks are midrange or aggro there's also some combo and control decks..
COntrol was dominant for the first 2 months of WOG and also in wild freeze mage (a control deck) is quite dominant one.
So once you drop your herthpwn bias on hating on aggro you realize the situation isn't that bad as people say control is totally relevant and aggro decks always tech to beat them.. so I disagree C'thun warrior, N'zoth paladin and ramp druid are seen a lot and they are control decks..
Token druids seems like a control deck to me with all that removal..
Control as "taking games to fatigue" is quite weak now that every deck can have a 10 mana finisher.
I have nothing against aggro. If you have e-peen issues with this topic, take it up with someone else.
But aggro lists should not be allowed to _outvalue_ greedy lists, that's just plain dumb design.
For example: Facehunter is a well designed face aggro deck with very high damage (it's extremely amusing to see low rank aggro shamans in wild trying to smorc you down and lose confusedly) but extremely fragile boards, minions , no cycle engine and next to zero value in the late game. Aggro shaman is not a well designed aggro deck, the minions are too tough, the boards to resilient and the value too high.
The point of higher cost cards must obviously be that they carry greater value, the punishment being that they are slow. Once you get to turn 7, the aggro list should not be the one to have the ability to vomit a big stat board while removing half your life total. They should, however, be able to punish you if you have had no answers... that's good aggro, punishing greed.
I think Hearthstone should just increase the deck size to 35 to combat aggro decks. Combo decks will just have to play as a psuedo control deck or add more card draw.
Face decks are important in Hearthstone because it controls decks that run very aggressive midrange tools. I mean, decks like midrange hunter find their best counters with face decks. However, it's true that control decks miss some controlling tools.
In magic the only option IS face, and the game is fine for 20 years now
Thank goddess I play MTG competitively too, so I know when ppl talk complete bullshit.
Every minion in MTG is a taunt, and even better. You can choose which minions go ATTACK, and opponent chooses how to block. So EVERY minion in MTG is supertaunt.
In magic the only option IS face, and the game is fine for 20 years now
Thank goddess I play MTG competitively too, so I know when ppl talk complete bullshit.
Every minion in MTG is a taunt, and even better. You can choose which minions go ATTACK, and opponent chooses how to block. So EVERY minion in MTG is supertaunt.
If you can't beat the other player by going face how would you win?
Well.. killing all stuff on the board with your board, then go face?
Ok, maybe full board elimination is very restrictive.
How about "you need to hit every enemy minion at least once, so they are busy to defend their face"?
This is way to complicated for the hearthstone community. Hit every minion once? There are players out there who don't even understand taunt :-p.
Killing all the board and going face is just the same as yugioh and magic the gathering. Why must we make all the games more the same instead of appreciating differences?
What you are saying is, you want certain types of aggro like zoo to become even stronger, while at the same time not allowing the other player to counter pressure.
As for comparison with MTG, what if I am to suggest that MTG should be changed so that you must block, even if it is going to end up being a chump block? Either way, you are removing one set of decision (whether to face vs whether to block) from the game, making it simpler.
As a side note, what if your opponent plays a Sylvanas Windrunner when you have 2x 8/8 on the board?
Attacker can choose which minion to kill, it's already a big deal. But attacker's ability to ignore the board and just go face is broken.
Would the game be better if it didn't allow to go face when you can attack a minion? OFC some minions would have some keyword that let go though them (Dreadsteed, for example). Taunt is left as is, because it restricts minion targeting.
Thoughts?
Games would just be longer and a bit more boring personally. I don't see how it is in any way broken, cause it is by choice of attacking face and leaving minions which can go face themselves.
No, it's perfectly fine going face. It's a design decision which is characteristic for Hearthstone and there are numerous control decks which shows that going face is not the only viable option (of course you have to deal face damage in the end).
You'd end up having to bring more spells to deal damage to face,which is silly honestly.
Dunno why so many people want 1 hour games.. just tech against aggro it's not that hard.. this change would kill combo and the more aggressive decks but mostly combo decks.. and it would make tempo mage the best deck cause it kills you with burn.
Short answer: No
Long answer: No, you are stupid
Double the trouble
This sounds like the basic original anime of Yugioh...which was a sad excuse of an anime. Thank goodness they mixed it up a bit second season, Face is a needed option for games like these.
I think Hearthstone should just increase the deck size to 35 to combat aggro decks. Combo decks will just have to play as a psuedo control deck or add more card draw.
Face decks are important in Hearthstone because it controls decks that run very aggressive midrange tools. I mean, decks like midrange hunter find their best counters with face decks. However, it's true that control decks miss some controlling tools.
Not all who wander are lost.
What you are saying is, you want certain types of aggro like zoo to become even stronger, while at the same time not allowing the other player to counter pressure.
As for comparison with MTG, what if I am to suggest that MTG should be changed so that you must block, even if it is going to end up being a chump block? Either way, you are removing one set of decision (whether to face vs whether to block) from the game, making it simpler.
As a side note, what if your opponent plays a Sylvanas Windrunner when you have 2x 8/8 on the board?
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.