1. After 30 minutes of stupid control decks where you pull your hair out waiting for your noob opponent to even think about what they're going to play each turn because they're doing their homework while playing. Roping each turn and trying to play just before the timer runs out.
2. Some people are so greedy, why wait 30 minutes to figure out your opponent just stacked his deck with every huge threat he has, and no aggro defense.
3. What's better? Killing someone on turn 6? or 45 minutes later dying because of RNG?
Is there any difference in the level of intellect it takes to kill someone on turn 6, or wait for RNG and card draw to go in your favor?
Isn't it the same as when one aggro player drews the nuts opener, while the other got a bad hand that he had to play inefficiently and lose the game. I remember the debate about "games are over in the mulligan phase". Isn't it the same RNG bullshit as later in the game. :D But at least you lost/won fast. xD
1. After 30 minutes of stupid control decks where you pull your hair out waiting for your noob opponent to even think about what they're going to play each turn because they're doing their homework while playing. Roping each turn and trying to play just before the timer runs out.
2. Some people are so greedy, why wait 30 minutes to figure out your opponent just stacked his deck with every huge threat he has, and no aggro defense.
3. What's better? Killing someone on turn 6? or 45 minutes later dying because of RNG?
Is there any difference in the level of intellect it takes to kill someone on turn 6, or wait for RNG and card draw to go in your favor?
Isn't it the same as when one aggro player drews the nuts opener, while the other got a bad hand that he had to play inefficiently and lose the game. I remember the debate about "games are over in the mulligan phase". Isn't it the same RNG bullshit as later in the game. :D But at least you lost/won fast. xD
This. Every aggro game can be decided on whether your opponent got the 3 cards that guarantee him an 80% winrate in his first few turns.
How many openers do you have to witness before you know you're dead? No matter what deck you're playing.
Some cards are so broken. There are plenty of Rogue openers that will have you pushing the concede button far often than not.
Or how about those Shaman Murlocs?
So you tech your deck against wide boards and then face nothing but bomb warrior. So what's the point of playing anything control?
If i ever run an aggro deck i make specific modifications to make it less lame, like putting in lorewalker cho to a call to arms deck. If you are running an aggro deck with the exact list from the internet, then you are trash im sorry but delete the app for the rest of us plz
1: you can make homebrew aggro decks 2: if you make a homebrew deck and lose for what is going on in the meta u should get better at deck building, or embrace the meme for what it is, a meme.
I dont know why control dumb players complains about aggro every time man, if it was a combo meta it would be way worse for you guys. Like last meta
Prefer that to "who got the greedier deck" matchups that nothing matters except that one card that makes you win the mirror control matchup
Prefer playing vs aggro most of the time than control.
Also control/combo just had 2 years where it was thriving and there was maximum one or two aggro decks (with good win rates, the rest were just inferior), so having a lot of aggro decks around.. yes please I missed that...
Instead of a game of who draws their hero card first, we have more games of who controls the board better and who makes better trade of HP better.
And as control/midragne the feeling of shutting down an aggro deck is really sastifying..
On the other side of the coin going out of control as an aggro deck and getting away by being aggressive is also sastifying specially when you play around AOE right and make the right plays/calls.
So no aggro isn't brain dead and neither is control but stop with that idiotic "control supermancy"
I enjoy setting and reinforcing the "ceiling" of the meta, preventing combo and control from getting too degenerate by demanding early responses to my threats. It's both empowering and a service to the meta by requiring consistency and planning from non-aggro decks over a nuclear arms race of "who can play the biggest threat first"
Aggro is my second favourite because i like fast games, but i prefer midrange decks as they are so much more fun for me at least. The incentive to play aggro is just the fast games it can provide, so that gets you more gold per hour if you just concede on matches that you know are gonna take long or are just too bad for your deck. Same goes for laddering, fast games=more games which translates to faster climb if you get favourable matches. Thats about it though, i dont find it particularly exciting or fun to play because its not fun running out of resources so fast.
Dude the real answer to this is that ppl who run aggro decks are noobs, or at the higher levels, try hards. They arent playing for fun. The noobs are playing it bc aggro decks are cheap on average. The tryhards are playing aggros bc its the fastest way up the latter and in theory means you could go the furthest down the latter bc its faster and you can pick up more wins. Either way, it sucks for the people who want to make their own decks and play ranked. I go undefeated on casual but i take a homemade deck and faggro decks are alqays there ruining the fun
The only type of deck which I dislike is the one whose win condition isn't achieved by actively lowering your opponents HP to zero but rather by draining all of their resources or destroying their deck. Thus, I dislike pure Fatigue and also Mill decks. As for the others, it doesn't matter if it's Aggro, Midrange or Combo. They all eventually go for the throat. And yes, Control decks nowadays also have another win condition apart from simply outlasting their opponent (see Bomb Warrior).
@topic - Aggro makes for fast games, simple as that. You've either won or lost by as late as turn 6-7, sometimes even earlier in case of extremely aggressive decks such as Token Druid. If I want to climb the ladder fast, I'd rather have multiple 5 min games than a single 30 min Control mirror.
Aggro used to be a favorite of mine way back in the early stage of my prior f2p life. One of my reasons for doing so was the cheapness of building decks. However, another reason at the time was that it punished classes that only played mega greedy decks. Even nowadays you can hop into wild and you still have to take precautions when playing an underdog control class in wild vs the same four classes that have the best removals & value engines vomited into their laps almost every expansion.
While I don't play nearly as much aggro as I used to I can definitely see how punishing classes like warlock or priest for almost always going mega greed would be satisfying. I mean seriously, warlocks/priests/mages/warriors should learn to dip into other playstyles more often.
this game itself is fast paced and usually warrants a quick deck. at times the meta does slow when a class gets the tools for a good control deck, but right now this doesn't really seem to be the case.
I think in general HS is usually more on the faster end of the spectrum and therefore by necessity, decks are quick and aggressive.
Ive played control pretty much exclusively for the last year, but have been trying various SMOrc decks in order to try to counter the bomb menace, and just for a change of pace in general. No defile/ psychic scream/ dragons fury/ duskbreaker etc makes playing traditional curve decks more attractive to me than they've been for some time. Gotta say, there is something unbelievably satisfying about bloodlusting my warrior opponent with a bunch of shitty murlocs when he has just put 4 bombs into my deck.
Dude the real answer to this is that ppl who run aggro decks are noobs, or at the higher levels, try hards. They arent playing for fun. The noobs are playing it bc aggro decks are cheap on average. The tryhards are playing aggros bc its the fastest way up the latter and in theory means you could go the furthest down the latter bc its faster and you can pick up more wins. Either way, it sucks for the people who want to make their own decks and play ranked. I go undefeated on casual but i take a homemade deck and aggro decks are alqays there ruining the fun
I think that answer is pretty two dimensional really. While wild is somewhat of a different story what a class can do in standard is very much determined by what playstyle T5 is trying to pigeonhole the class into. For example, look at rogue, druid, and shaman for the last half a dozen expansions or so in standard. Tell me how many non-otk control cards those three classes were given? Now take those cards and compare them to the control cards given to warlock/priest/mage/ & warrior. Most of those control cards given to the other classes very often do not compete in value with the unsurprising control poster children.
You say aggro is for noobs, but if you want to play those classes (at least in standard) and you didn't play something like Shudderwok, OTK pally, or the semi-meme Maly Rogue what are you usually left with? Yep, aggro and midrange. The reality of the situation is that T5's insistence of sticking to their terrible version of class identity (which is super inconsistent btw considering classes like rogue have barely been changed in some core ways while warriors have gotten to experience control/hyper aggro/midrange/mega fatigue and mages were actually given healing for the longest time) really squashes what can really be done with the classes and makes it so that if you want to play control you really have only a choice between 1/3 to 1/2 of the classes & the same goes for all of the other playstyles.
Some people want to play control rogue/control shaman/control druid/etc but either can't because T5 doesn't usually make those cards for those classes in standard metas or they have to slog through uphill battle attrition wars vs classes in wild that have been given years of powerhouse busted removal & value engines from the start.
But hey why not use our brains for discustions and all of that critical thinking nonsense. Let's just call everyone noobs for funsies.
If i ever run an aggro deck i make specific modifications to make it less lame, like putting in lorewalker cho to a call to arms deck. If you are running an aggro deck with the exact list from the internet, then you are trash im sorry but delete the app for the rest of us plz
"If I run an Aggro deck I make it worse to give my opponent a chance." Pfffffttt...
Putting a Meme Card into a proven Aggro deck does not make it worse. It just makes you a douche.
For me, a lot of it comes down to me really liking 1-drops and 2-drops in general. There's something really satisfying about reliably having a turn 1 and turn 2 play, and I love seeing the design space that the devs can squeeze into a 1 or 2 cost minion (Acornbearer and EVIL Genius are two of my favorite cards from the new set)
I also really like decks where your minions interact with each other a lot in some way, either through buffs or tribal synergies, etc. Aggro and Zoo decks get on the board early and tend to stay there, so there are lots of opportunities to pull off those interactions. For example, my favorite deck in standard right now is a Lackey-based Zoolock with Magic Carpets and Barista Lynchen that I put together, and my Wild deck of choice at the moment is a Hobgoblin Token Druid (As soon as I saw Acornbearer I wanted to play those squirrels with Hobgoblin and Crypt Lord).
The stuff I described works for midrange too (and I love playing and experimenting with building midrange decks), but I'll eventually run into a super greedy deck that either ends up with a bunch of huge dudes I can't deal with, or OTKs me. Then the thought of "If I was playing something faster, they wouldn't have gotten away with that" creeps in.
Lastly, I find trading is a lot more interesting when playing more aggressive decks (especially aggro mirrors!). Because your cards are smaller, you have to squeeze as much value as you can out of them by trading and not playing into board clears. But if you trade too much, you won't be able to close out the game. I run into a lot of interesting decisions when it comes to figuring out when its ok to go face. Like "How well can I recover if I go face and they play an AOE? Can I bet on them not having one?", or "Can i choose not to trade here because my opponent will feel like they have to do it? " or "Did this minion get enough value where it's ok to kill it off in a trade now? How likely is it to get more value anyway?" Stuff like that!
For me, a lot of it comes down to me really liking 1-drops and 2-drops in general. There's something really satisfying about reliably having a turn 1 and turn 2 play, and I love seeing the design space that the devs can squeeze into a 1 or 2 cost minion (Acornbearer and EVIL Genius are two of my favorite cards from the new set)
I also really like decks where your minions interact with each other a lot in some way, either through buffs or tribal synergies, etc. Aggro and Zoo decks get on the board early and tend to stay there, so there are lots of opportunities to pull off those interactions. For example, my favorite deck in standard right now is a Lackey-based Zoolock with Magic Carpets and Barista Lynchen that I put together, and my Wild deck of choice at the moment is a Hobgoblin Token Druid (As soon as I saw Acornbearer I wanted to play those squirrels with Hobgoblin and Crypt Lord).
The stuff I described works for midrange too (and I love playing and experimenting with building midrange decks), but I'll eventually run into a super greedy deck that either ends up with a bunch of huge dudes I can't deal with, or OTKs me. Then the thought of "If I was playing something faster, they wouldn't have gotten away with that" creeps in.
Lastly, I find trading is a lot more interesting when playing more aggressive decks (especially aggro mirrors!). Because your cards are smaller, you have to squeeze as much value as you can out of them by trading and not playing into board clears. But if you trade too much, you won't be able to close out the game. I run into a lot of interesting decisions when it comes to figuring out when its ok to go face. Like "How well can I recover if I go face and they play an AOE? Can I bet on them not having one?", or "Can i choose not to trade here because my opponent will feel like they have to do it? " or "Did this minion get enough value where it's ok to kill it off in a trade now? How likely is it to get more value anyway?" Stuff like that!
yeah I agree with this.
playing lots of smaller minions with intricate little synergies is cool.
But I also love it when a deck not only is decent on ladder, but has some kind of theme that ties it together as well.
I'm gonna build a carpet zoo, anda treant token deck tomorrow. They both look like loads of fun.
I usually start to play aggro decks when I feel all my opponents are playing slightly slow greedy decks. Then it's fun to punish them for it. But never for too long.
The only aggro deck that's even remotely fun to play is token druid. It's less braindead and takes a bit of strategy. Every other aggo deck I've played just puts me to sleep. I mostly prefer controlish/combo decks but nothing as boring as fatigue decks which again, put me to sleep. Handlock, Summon Mage, Shirvallah Paladin, and Bomb Warrior are where it's at funwise.
I am a completely F2P player who barely had enough gold to open 20-25 packs. Out of those packs I only got the guaranteed legendary. which was The Boom Reaver.
I would like to be able to play some other decks like fatigue warrior, mech hunter, silance priest etc, but I simply do not have the core cards.
Aggro decks can work even if you miss some of the legendarily, since the main power comes from cheap minions, most of which are comun or rare.
I still got 7 and 12 wins in brawliseum with a version of warlock zoo, so it's not like you can't be competitive as F2P. You just can't afford the fun of experimenting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Isn't it the same as when one aggro player drews the nuts opener, while the other got a bad hand that he had to play inefficiently and lose the game. I remember the debate about "games are over in the mulligan phase". Isn't it the same RNG bullshit as later in the game. :D But at least you lost/won fast. xD
My first created Hearthstone cards:
This. Every aggro game can be decided on whether your opponent got the 3 cards that guarantee him an 80% winrate in his first few turns.
How many openers do you have to witness before you know you're dead? No matter what deck you're playing.
Some cards are so broken. There are plenty of Rogue openers that will have you pushing the concede button far often than not.
Or how about those Shaman Murlocs?
So you tech your deck against wide boards and then face nothing but bomb warrior. So what's the point of playing anything control?
You can't tech your deck against everything.
1: you can make homebrew aggro decks
2: if you make a homebrew deck and lose for what is going on in the meta u should get better at deck building, or embrace the meme for what it is, a meme.
I dont know why control dumb players complains about aggro every time man, if it was a combo meta it would be way worse for you guys. Like last meta
Prefer that to "who got the greedier deck" matchups that nothing matters except that one card that makes you win the mirror control matchup
Prefer playing vs aggro most of the time than control.
Also control/combo just had 2 years where it was thriving and there was maximum one or two aggro decks (with good win rates, the rest were just inferior), so having a lot of aggro decks around.. yes please I missed that...
Instead of a game of who draws their hero card first, we have more games of who controls the board better and who makes better trade of HP better.
And as control/midragne the feeling of shutting down an aggro deck is really sastifying..
On the other side of the coin going out of control as an aggro deck and getting away by being aggressive is also sastifying specially when you play around AOE right and make the right plays/calls.
So no aggro isn't brain dead and neither is control but stop with that idiotic "control supermancy"
I enjoy setting and reinforcing the "ceiling" of the meta, preventing combo and control from getting too degenerate by demanding early responses to my threats. It's both empowering and a service to the meta by requiring consistency and planning from non-aggro decks over a nuclear arms race of "who can play the biggest threat first"
Aggro is my second favourite because i like fast games, but i prefer midrange decks as they are so much more fun for me at least. The incentive to play aggro is just the fast games it can provide, so that gets you more gold per hour if you just concede on matches that you know are gonna take long or are just too bad for your deck. Same goes for laddering, fast games=more games which translates to faster climb if you get favourable matches. Thats about it though, i dont find it particularly exciting or fun to play because its not fun running out of resources so fast.
cant handle all this salt, its burning my eyes.
The only type of deck which I dislike is the one whose win condition isn't achieved by actively lowering your opponents HP to zero but rather by draining all of their resources or destroying their deck. Thus, I dislike pure Fatigue and also Mill decks. As for the others, it doesn't matter if it's Aggro, Midrange or Combo. They all eventually go for the throat. And yes, Control decks nowadays also have another win condition apart from simply outlasting their opponent (see Bomb Warrior).
@topic - Aggro makes for fast games, simple as that. You've either won or lost by as late as turn 6-7, sometimes even earlier in case of extremely aggressive decks such as Token Druid. If I want to climb the ladder fast, I'd rather have multiple 5 min games than a single 30 min Control mirror.
Aggro used to be a favorite of mine way back in the early stage of my prior f2p life. One of my reasons for doing so was the cheapness of building decks. However, another reason at the time was that it punished classes that only played mega greedy decks. Even nowadays you can hop into wild and you still have to take precautions when playing an underdog control class in wild vs the same four classes that have the best removals & value engines vomited into their laps almost every expansion.
While I don't play nearly as much aggro as I used to I can definitely see how punishing classes like warlock or priest for almost always going mega greed would be satisfying. I mean seriously, warlocks/priests/mages/warriors should learn to dip into other playstyles more often.
this game itself is fast paced and usually warrants a quick deck. at times the meta does slow when a class gets the tools for a good control deck, but right now this doesn't really seem to be the case.
I think in general HS is usually more on the faster end of the spectrum and therefore by necessity, decks are quick and aggressive.
You're either quick or dead in most cases.
Ive played control pretty much exclusively for the last year, but have been trying various SMOrc decks in order to try to counter the bomb menace, and just for a change of pace in general. No defile/ psychic scream/ dragons fury/ duskbreaker etc makes playing traditional curve decks more attractive to me than they've been for some time. Gotta say, there is something unbelievably satisfying about bloodlusting my warrior opponent with a bunch of shitty murlocs when he has just put 4 bombs into my deck.
I think that answer is pretty two dimensional really. While wild is somewhat of a different story what a class can do in standard is very much determined by what playstyle T5 is trying to pigeonhole the class into. For example, look at rogue, druid, and shaman for the last half a dozen expansions or so in standard. Tell me how many non-otk control cards those three classes were given? Now take those cards and compare them to the control cards given to warlock/priest/mage/ & warrior. Most of those control cards given to the other classes very often do not compete in value with the unsurprising control poster children.
You say aggro is for noobs, but if you want to play those classes (at least in standard) and you didn't play something like Shudderwok, OTK pally, or the semi-meme Maly Rogue what are you usually left with? Yep, aggro and midrange. The reality of the situation is that T5's insistence of sticking to their terrible version of class identity (which is super inconsistent btw considering classes like rogue have barely been changed in some core ways while warriors have gotten to experience control/hyper aggro/midrange/mega fatigue and mages were actually given healing for the longest time) really squashes what can really be done with the classes and makes it so that if you want to play control you really have only a choice between 1/3 to 1/2 of the classes & the same goes for all of the other playstyles.
Some people want to play control rogue/control shaman/control druid/etc but either can't because T5 doesn't usually make those cards for those classes in standard metas or they have to slog through uphill battle attrition wars vs classes in wild that have been given years of powerhouse busted removal & value engines from the start.
But hey why not use our brains for discustions and all of that critical thinking nonsense. Let's just call everyone noobs for funsies.
"If I run an Aggro deck I make it worse to give my opponent a chance." Pfffffttt...
Putting a Meme Card into a proven Aggro deck does not make it worse. It just makes you a douche.
4/3/19 RIP Keith Flint. 😔
Lyra, I have a lot of respect for your replies and points of view. But this one is wrong.
Warrior has had a vicious Aggro Deck that ruled the Meta for some time, as has Mage in the form of Mech.
And Warlocks can run a very Aggressive ZooLock in just about every Season since the introduction of the game.
And its almost impossible to make a Preist Aggro Deck. I've tried. I really have.
4/3/19 RIP Keith Flint. 😔
For me, a lot of it comes down to me really liking 1-drops and 2-drops in general. There's something really satisfying about reliably having a turn 1 and turn 2 play, and I love seeing the design space that the devs can squeeze into a 1 or 2 cost minion (Acornbearer and EVIL Genius are two of my favorite cards from the new set)
I also really like decks where your minions interact with each other a lot in some way, either through buffs or tribal synergies, etc. Aggro and Zoo decks get on the board early and tend to stay there, so there are lots of opportunities to pull off those interactions. For example, my favorite deck in standard right now is a Lackey-based Zoolock with Magic Carpets and Barista Lynchen that I put together, and my Wild deck of choice at the moment is a Hobgoblin Token Druid (As soon as I saw Acornbearer I wanted to play those squirrels with Hobgoblin and Crypt Lord).
The stuff I described works for midrange too (and I love playing and experimenting with building midrange decks), but I'll eventually run into a super greedy deck that either ends up with a bunch of huge dudes I can't deal with, or OTKs me. Then the thought of "If I was playing something faster, they wouldn't have gotten away with that" creeps in.
Lastly, I find trading is a lot more interesting when playing more aggressive decks (especially aggro mirrors!). Because your cards are smaller, you have to squeeze as much value as you can out of them by trading and not playing into board clears. But if you trade too much, you won't be able to close out the game. I run into a lot of interesting decisions when it comes to figuring out when its ok to go face. Like "How well can I recover if I go face and they play an AOE? Can I bet on them not having one?", or "Can i choose not to trade here because my opponent will feel like they have to do it? " or "Did this minion get enough value where it's ok to kill it off in a trade now? How likely is it to get more value anyway?" Stuff like that!
yeah I agree with this.
playing lots of smaller minions with intricate little synergies is cool.
But I also love it when a deck not only is decent on ladder, but has some kind of theme that ties it together as well.
I'm gonna build a carpet zoo, anda treant token deck tomorrow. They both look like loads of fun.
I usually start to play aggro decks when I feel all my opponents are playing slightly slow greedy decks. Then it's fun to punish them for it. But never for too long.
because blizzard supports it and it is fun
-end-
I was in charge!! - Patches the Pirate
The only aggro deck that's even remotely fun to play is token druid. It's less braindead and takes a bit of strategy. Every other aggo deck I've played just puts me to sleep. I mostly prefer controlish/combo decks but nothing as boring as fatigue decks which again, put me to sleep. Handlock, Summon Mage, Shirvallah Paladin, and Bomb Warrior are where it's at funwise.
My story is:
I am a completely F2P player who barely had enough gold to open 20-25 packs. Out of those packs I only got the guaranteed legendary. which was The Boom Reaver.
I would like to be able to play some other decks like fatigue warrior, mech hunter, silance priest etc, but I simply do not have the core cards.
Aggro decks can work even if you miss some of the legendarily, since the main power comes from cheap minions, most of which are comun or rare.
I still got 7 and 12 wins in brawliseum with a version of warlock zoo, so it's not like you can't be competitive as F2P. You just can't afford the fun of experimenting.