Hearthpwn

Quote from Mini1994 >>

The amount of viable decks is the single dumbest argument and metric that exists for evaluating the health of a meta and OCG/TCG as a whole, and should be entirely disregarded. It is absolute nonsense. In fact, in trying to use it as your metric, you have instead just made an attempt to counter an ACTUAL argument and metric for the health of the game: How much variability is there.

Right now, the game has only 2 different decks. I give 0 shits about whether or not the deck is a priest, a hunter, a paladin, mage, warlock or whatever. That's arbitrary, and it doesn't matter at all. In standard right now, there are 2 decks: Extreme aggro, or OTK combo.

 First, let's remember what OTK means: One-Turn Kill. That means the deck has to be capable of dealing at least 30 damage in a single turn. Anything less than that, and it's just a combo burst, which is not nearly as unhealthy. In many cases, it may just be a control deck with an actual win condition.

Here are some Tier 1 and 2 decks that are not aggro or OTK:

• Secret Paladin, the top deck at the moment, is not aggro. It is midrange.
• Deathrattle Demon Hunter is the most midrange deck you'll ever see.
• Handbuff Paladin plays like midrange. (Battlemaster certainly makes it capable of OTK damage, but it can win without that.)
• Quest Shaman is a control deck. It may get bursty at the end, but it does not usually take you from 30 to 0 in a single turn.
• Rush Warrior is midrange.
• Quest Warrior is midrange.
• Quest Mage, which isn't even a top deck but is one everyone likes to complain about, is arguably a control deck. It is designed to keep the board clear and deals a big burst at the end, but not usually 30 in a single turn unless you let the game go on forever. That's not so different from the way control has always played -- inevitability is a hallmark of control archetypes.
• Some Warlock decks, with their massive healing and heavy removal, are control. The ones people hate most are combo, for sure, but there are viable Warlock decks that do not use combos or OTK.

I think a big part of the problem is one of terminology. People don't really understand the difference between OTK combo and the inevitability of control.

Control now has real win conditions, and it reaches them faster. That can feel like an OTK, but it's usually not even technically a combo. And hey, guess what -- in control vs. control, the winner is the one that reaches its win condition first. That's why really slow control decks are having trouble these days. They still lose to real combo decks, and now they also lose to faster control decks.

Quote from Mini1994 >>

Quote from SirJohn13 >>

Quote from Squiggly >>

The meta seems to be everyone rushing to complete whatever simple or elaborate kill plan they have, to even the discouragement of using any minions that are not part of said scheme.  

Quest shamans rushing to get double cast so they can burn with attack spells or summon multiple 10-cost minions each turn.  Elemental shamans going for otk with doomhammer or just barrage of face damage battlecries/spells.

Quest mages rushing to complete and get spell damage to burn down in a turn or two with remaining spells.

Quest warlocks mashing their hero power and self-harming quick as they can so they can kill with fatigue or dropping free 8/8s on turn 4 (which still happens even after the nerf).

Rogues rushing to shuffle their cards around ND discount them to then try and burst burn in a turn or two by drawing through their deck and hitting garrotes and other face damage spells (ideally with spell damage).

Demon hunters drawing as fast as they can, either to plop down (auto-summoning) big minions, or lots of fel spells.

Paladins piling all the minions they can into the field with every turn to either megabuff the ones they haven't put down yet, or otk with battlemaster and attack boost for anything that isn't immediately wiped.

Hunters going face with even more spells now and less reliance on minions.

Priests rushing in shadow form to kill with nicks and cuts.  Or quest priests as possibly the only class that tries to stall for as long as possible to complete the quest and then draw out the insta-kill card.  (I think giving an insta-kill to a class that has specialized in dragging out matches is bad too though, and still gives the sense of rushing to complete an ultimate weapon).

Warriors rushing out pirates to get that ship.

Druids sitting until they can double-summon 8-cost minions and armor (optionally resetting your mana before/after so you can't do anything), or spam the field with summoned minions and hope you don't have an aoe spell to respond with so they can otk.

Druids were nerfed before the latest expansion explicitly to reduce the frequency of 'non-games' where it doesn't matter what their opponent does/the opponent can't do anything, but now it seems like most classes are essentially hoping for the same thing.  Prep your killer combo first, with thanks to lucky rng, and pay only the minimal required attention to what the opponent is doing.

Many games have the sense of it being clear who is going to win by around turn 5 now (sometimes earlier), with the crappy part being that it's clear there was nothing you (or they) could have done to prevent it, based on rng.

 

 This post sums it up well: There are multiple viable archetypes, the meta is very diverse, every deck has a gameplan and tries to play accordingly instead of just preventing the opponent from executing theirs. Sounds great overall. Would it make you feel better about the meta if all decks were running some vanilla 3-mana 3/4s with the goal of trading on the opponents' vanilla 2-mana 2/3s?

The amount of viable decks is the single dumbest argument and metric that exists for evaluating the health of a meta and OCG/TCG as a whole, and should be entirely disregarded. It is absolute nonsense. In fact, in trying to use it as your metric, you have instead just made an attempt to counter an ACTUAL argument and metric for the health of the game: How much variability is there.

Right now, the game has only 2 different decks. I give 0 shits about whether or not the deck is a priest, a hunter, a paladin, mage, warlock or whatever. That's arbitrary, and it doesn't matter at all. In standard right now, there are 2 decks: Extreme aggro, or OTK combo. The reason for this, is ENTIRELY because of the strength of the combo strategies, and NOT of the strength of the aggro strategies. The extreme aggro exists solely as a countermeasure to the combo decks, because they ARE the only thing that can compete, let alone survive, against combo.

Hearthstone, right now, is fundamentally at a point where it has to make a decision - and only one of those decisions is right: Does it want the game to continue along this trajectory, effectively eliminating every single other deck in the game from ever having a remote chance, OR

Is it going to allow players to interact in more key fashions, in order for any sort of slower deck to have options to curtail the strength of combo decks.

 You are right. This meta unbeleavably sucks ass. The good thing is that it made me quit the game, so I actually get to know and play different games and not waste so much time with hs and give any more money to this fucking company.

Honestly this meta has made me hate the game so much.  It's one thing if the infinite damage options had counterplay but the only counterplay to warlock/mage right now is pray that their fuck up the quest, or out pace them.  Right now warlock can empty their entire deck reliably by turn 8, then gets infinite damage from fatigue.  Currently I think there are 3 changes they can make that would improve the game.

1. Make warlock quest not transfer fatigue damage.  This would likely kill the insane speed of the deck but not completely kill it as an option.  It would also make Jaraxxus viable again.

2. Make ignite cost 3 mana, and start with 1 damage.  The card is already an infinite damage engine, it shouldn't start as a baseline ok card.

3.  Battlegrounds battlemaster gets taunt.  Sounds like a buff right?  well now it can't just hide behind a divine shield taunt 1/1, but still keeps its power.  The other option i guess would be battle cry or a further nerf to its mana.

These 3 changes would fix the least healthy decks in the meta while not completely crippling.  I will note that this isn't enough to cure all the problems, but at the very least will allow slower decks (note i'm not even saying SLOW control decks like Dr.Boom/Elysiana decks of old) just decks that aren't playing a strategy that relies on a turn 6/7 win condition.

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from RendInFriend >>

The issue isn’t spells v boardstate, it is directly tied to intentional game design. They want faster games, everyone complained there were no wincons in warlock and priest in barrens… this is what we asked for. Is this worse than rez priest or boomsday warrior? That’s what we traded.

 Stormwind was designed long before the community ever saw Barrens or had any chance to complain about it.

But thank you for bringing up Boomsday Warrior, because that dismal memory makes me feel MUCH better about the current meta.

 They might not have known about barrens complaints, but they were nothing new. Priest discovers too many cards, games take too long, control decks OP…. that’s been going on for quite some time.

When I get frustrated with this meta I just remember when I brewed up a priest deck during the boomsday warrior craze and the goal was to steal a copy of their elysiana so I could play 2 elysianas. Those weren’t very fun times either. That or the thrill of seeing paladin emoting on turn 6 before playing one card that drew and played five secrets from their deck. 

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from Mini1994 >>

The amount of viable decks is the single dumbest argument and metric that exists for evaluating the health of a meta and OCG/TCG as a whole, and should be entirely disregarded. It is absolute nonsense. In fact, in trying to use it as your metric, you have instead just made an attempt to counter an ACTUAL argument and metric for the health of the game: How much variability is there.

Right now, the game has only 2 different decks. I give 0 shits about whether or not the deck is a priest, a hunter, a paladin, mage, warlock or whatever. That's arbitrary, and it doesn't matter at all. In standard right now, there are 2 decks: Extreme aggro, or OTK combo.

 First, let's remember what OTK means: One-Turn Kill. That means the deck has to be capable of dealing at least 30 damage in a single turn. Anything less than that, and it's just a combo burst, which is not nearly as unhealthy. In many cases, it may just be a control deck with an actual win condition.

Here are some Tier 1 and 2 decks that are not aggro or OTK:

• Secret Paladin, the top deck at the moment, is not aggro. It is midrange.
• Deathrattle Demon Hunter is the most midrange deck you'll ever see.
• Handbuff Paladin plays like midrange. (Battlemaster certainly makes it capable of OTK damage, but it can win without that.)
• Quest Shaman is a control deck. It may get bursty at the end, but it does not usually take you from 30 to 0 in a single turn.
• Rush Warrior is midrange.
• Quest Warrior is midrange.
• Quest Mage, which isn't even a top deck but is one everyone likes to complain about, is arguably a control deck. It is designed to keep the board clear and deals a big burst at the end, but not usually 30 in a single turn unless you let the game go on forever. That's not so different from the way control has always played -- inevitability is a hallmark of control archetypes.
• Some Warlock decks, with their massive healing and heavy removal, are control. The ones people hate most are combo, for sure, but there are viable Warlock decks that do not use combos or OTK.

I think a big part of the problem is one of terminology. People don't really understand the difference between OTK combo and the inevitability of control.

Control now has real win conditions, and it reaches them faster. That can feel like an OTK, but it's usually not even technically a combo. And hey, guess what -- in control vs. control, the winner is the one that reaches its win condition first. That's why really slow control decks are having trouble these days. They still lose to real combo decks, and now they also lose to faster control decks.

 You are simple wrong here, yes an ideal combo aims to kill your opponent in one turn, however any deck that is not capable of doing so is not automaticly not a combo deck. The "combo deck" term has been established long before hearthstone has even been a thing (and combo doesn ot mean anything different in hearthstone)

Combo deck is a term for a deck of (usually sixty) Magic: The Gathering cards that aims to win the game using a relatively small number of cards that instantly or very quickly win the game when combined (hence the name "combo").^[1] Because of this win strategy, a common motif among combo decks is an emphasis put on the ability to find specific cards quickly and win as fast as possible.

Almost all current quest decks are by definition combo decks, it only happens so that you start with one piece of the combo in your starting hand. The difference between a control and a combo deck usually comes in the form of value, a typical control deck aims to play the "null game". Answer everything your opponent does until you reach a point in the game where you can start dropping your own threats, which in contrast to combo decks dont just end the game the moment the card is played or even the turn after, Rattlegore is a perfect example of this.

Quote from Shango >>

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from Mini1994 >>

The amount of viable decks is the single dumbest argument and metric that exists for evaluating the health of a meta and OCG/TCG as a whole, and should be entirely disregarded. It is absolute nonsense. In fact, in trying to use it as your metric, you have instead just made an attempt to counter an ACTUAL argument and metric for the health of the game: How much variability is there.

Right now, the game has only 2 different decks. I give 0 shits about whether or not the deck is a priest, a hunter, a paladin, mage, warlock or whatever. That's arbitrary, and it doesn't matter at all. In standard right now, there are 2 decks: Extreme aggro, or OTK combo.

 First, let's remember what OTK means: One-Turn Kill. That means the deck has to be capable of dealing at least 30 damage in a single turn. Anything less than that, and it's just a combo burst, which is not nearly as unhealthy. In many cases, it may just be a control deck with an actual win condition.

Here are some Tier 1 and 2 decks that are not aggro or OTK:

• Secret Paladin, the top deck at the moment, is not aggro. It is midrange.
• Deathrattle Demon Hunter is the most midrange deck you'll ever see.
• Handbuff Paladin plays like midrange. (Battlemaster certainly makes it capable of OTK damage, but it can win without that.)
• Quest Shaman is a control deck. It may get bursty at the end, but it does not usually take you from 30 to 0 in a single turn.
• Rush Warrior is midrange.
• Quest Warrior is midrange.
• Quest Mage, which isn't even a top deck but is one everyone likes to complain about, is arguably a control deck. It is designed to keep the board clear and deals a big burst at the end, but not usually 30 in a single turn unless you let the game go on forever. That's not so different from the way control has always played -- inevitability is a hallmark of control archetypes.
• Some Warlock decks, with their massive healing and heavy removal, are control. The ones people hate most are combo, for sure, but there are viable Warlock decks that do not use combos or OTK.

I think a big part of the problem is one of terminology. People don't really understand the difference between OTK combo and the inevitability of control.

Control now has real win conditions, and it reaches them faster. That can feel like an OTK, but it's usually not even technically a combo. And hey, guess what -- in control vs. control, the winner is the one that reaches its win condition first. That's why really slow control decks are having trouble these days. They still lose to real combo decks, and now they also lose to faster control decks.

 You are simple wrong here, yes an ideal combo aims to kill your opponent in one turn, however any deck that is not capable of doing so is not automaticly not a combo deck. The "combo deck" term has been established long before hearthstone has even been a thing (and combo doesn ot mean anything different in hearthstone)

Combo deck is a term for a deck of (usually sixty) Magic: The Gathering cards that aims to win the game using a relatively small number of cards that instantly or very quickly win the game when combined (hence the name "combo").^[1] Because of this win strategy, a common motif among combo decks is an emphasis put on the ability to find specific cards quickly and win as fast as possible.

Almost all current quest decks are by definition combo decks, it only happens so that you start with one piece of the combo in your starting hand. The difference between a control and a combo deck usually comes in the form of value, a typical control deck aims to play the "null game". Answer everything your opponent does until you reach a point in the game where you can start dropping your own threats, which in contrast to combo decks dont just end the game the moment the card is played or even the turn after, Rattlegore is a perfect example of this.

 Thank you sir. Youre 100% correct.

Quote from Shango >>

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from Mini1994 >>

The amount of viable decks is the single dumbest argument and metric that exists for evaluating the health of a meta and OCG/TCG as a whole, and should be entirely disregarded. It is absolute nonsense. In fact, in trying to use it as your metric, you have instead just made an attempt to counter an ACTUAL argument and metric for the health of the game: How much variability is there.

Right now, the game has only 2 different decks. I give 0 shits about whether or not the deck is a priest, a hunter, a paladin, mage, warlock or whatever. That's arbitrary, and it doesn't matter at all. In standard right now, there are 2 decks: Extreme aggro, or OTK combo.

 First, let's remember what OTK means: One-Turn Kill. That means the deck has to be capable of dealing at least 30 damage in a single turn. Anything less than that, and it's just a combo burst, which is not nearly as unhealthy. In many cases, it may just be a control deck with an actual win condition.

Here are some Tier 1 and 2 decks that are not aggro or OTK:

• Secret Paladin, the top deck at the moment, is not aggro. It is midrange.
• Deathrattle Demon Hunter is the most midrange deck you'll ever see.
• Handbuff Paladin plays like midrange. (Battlemaster certainly makes it capable of OTK damage, but it can win without that.)
• Quest Shaman is a control deck. It may get bursty at the end, but it does not usually take you from 30 to 0 in a single turn.
• Rush Warrior is midrange.
• Quest Warrior is midrange.
• Quest Mage, which isn't even a top deck but is one everyone likes to complain about, is arguably a control deck. It is designed to keep the board clear and deals a big burst at the end, but not usually 30 in a single turn unless you let the game go on forever. That's not so different from the way control has always played -- inevitability is a hallmark of control archetypes.
• Some Warlock decks, with their massive healing and heavy removal, are control. The ones people hate most are combo, for sure, but there are viable Warlock decks that do not use combos or OTK.

I think a big part of the problem is one of terminology. People don't really understand the difference between OTK combo and the inevitability of control.

Control now has real win conditions, and it reaches them faster. That can feel like an OTK, but it's usually not even technically a combo. And hey, guess what -- in control vs. control, the winner is the one that reaches its win condition first. That's why really slow control decks are having trouble these days. They still lose to real combo decks, and now they also lose to faster control decks.

 You are simple wrong here, yes an ideal combo aims to kill your opponent in one turn, however any deck that is not capable of doing so is not automaticly not a combo deck. The "combo deck" term has been established long before hearthstone has even been a thing (and combo doesn ot mean anything different in hearthstone)

Combo deck is a term for a deck of (usually sixty) Magic: The Gathering cards that aims to win the game using a relatively small number of cards that instantly or very quickly win the game when combined (hence the name "combo").^[1] Because of this win strategy, a common motif among combo decks is an emphasis put on the ability to find specific cards quickly and win as fast as possible.

Almost all current quest decks are by definition combo decks, it only happens so that you start with one piece of the combo in your starting hand. The difference between a control and a combo deck usually comes in the form of value, a typical control deck aims to play the "null game". Answer everything your opponent does until you reach a point in the game where you can start dropping your own threats, which in contrast to combo decks dont just end the game the moment the card is played or even the turn after, Rattlegore is a perfect example of this.

 I was very careful to define OTK, not "combo." So thanks, you've just proved how pervasive the terminology problem is.

Many of the hated decks are indeed both control and combo (because the two are not mutually exclusive), but they are not "OTK" as so many people call them.

And, of course, my main point went unnoticed because people think they can "win" a thread by nitpicking ... But I'll re-state it in case you missed it: There are plenty of decks out there that are not Aggro or OTK -- in fact, the front-runners in this meta are neither of those.

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from Shango >>

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from Mini1994 >>

The amount of viable decks is the single dumbest argument and metric that exists for evaluating the health of a meta and OCG/TCG as a whole, and should be entirely disregarded. It is absolute nonsense. In fact, in trying to use it as your metric, you have instead just made an attempt to counter an ACTUAL argument and metric for the health of the game: How much variability is there.

Right now, the game has only 2 different decks. I give 0 shits about whether or not the deck is a priest, a hunter, a paladin, mage, warlock or whatever. That's arbitrary, and it doesn't matter at all. In standard right now, there are 2 decks: Extreme aggro, or OTK combo.

 First, let's remember what OTK means: One-Turn Kill. That means the deck has to be capable of dealing at least 30 damage in a single turn. Anything less than that, and it's just a combo burst, which is not nearly as unhealthy. In many cases, it may just be a control deck with an actual win condition.

Here are some Tier 1 and 2 decks that are not aggro or OTK:

• Secret Paladin, the top deck at the moment, is not aggro. It is midrange.
• Deathrattle Demon Hunter is the most midrange deck you'll ever see.
• Handbuff Paladin plays like midrange. (Battlemaster certainly makes it capable of OTK damage, but it can win without that.)
• Quest Shaman is a control deck. It may get bursty at the end, but it does not usually take you from 30 to 0 in a single turn.
• Rush Warrior is midrange.
• Quest Warrior is midrange.
• Quest Mage, which isn't even a top deck but is one everyone likes to complain about, is arguably a control deck. It is designed to keep the board clear and deals a big burst at the end, but not usually 30 in a single turn unless you let the game go on forever. That's not so different from the way control has always played -- inevitability is a hallmark of control archetypes.
• Some Warlock decks, with their massive healing and heavy removal, are control. The ones people hate most are combo, for sure, but there are viable Warlock decks that do not use combos or OTK.

I think a big part of the problem is one of terminology. People don't really understand the difference between OTK combo and the inevitability of control.

Control now has real win conditions, and it reaches them faster. That can feel like an OTK, but it's usually not even technically a combo. And hey, guess what -- in control vs. control, the winner is the one that reaches its win condition first. That's why really slow control decks are having trouble these days. They still lose to real combo decks, and now they also lose to faster control decks.

 You are simple wrong here, yes an ideal combo aims to kill your opponent in one turn, however any deck that is not capable of doing so is not automaticly not a combo deck. The "combo deck" term has been established long before hearthstone has even been a thing (and combo doesn ot mean anything different in hearthstone)

Combo deck is a term for a deck of (usually sixty) Magic: The Gathering cards that aims to win the game using a relatively small number of cards that instantly or very quickly win the game when combined (hence the name "combo").^[1] Because of this win strategy, a common motif among combo decks is an emphasis put on the ability to find specific cards quickly and win as fast as possible.

Almost all current quest decks are by definition combo decks, it only happens so that you start with one piece of the combo in your starting hand. The difference between a control and a combo deck usually comes in the form of value, a typical control deck aims to play the "null game". Answer everything your opponent does until you reach a point in the game where you can start dropping your own threats, which in contrast to combo decks dont just end the game the moment the card is played or even the turn after, Rattlegore is a perfect example of this.

 I was very careful to define OTK, not "combo." So thanks, you've just proved how pervasive the terminology problem is.

Many of the hated decks are indeed both control and combo (because the two are not mutually exclusive), but they are not "OTK" as so many people call them.

And, of course, my main point went unnoticed because people think they can "win" a thread by nitpicking ... But I'll re-state it in case you missed it: There are plenty of decks out there that are not Aggro or OTK -- in fact, the front-runners in this meta are neither of those.

 Combo and Control are mutually exklsuive, i dont know how many times this cnversation ahs been had in the past but jsut because a face hunter plays for board against shadow priest does not mean he is playing a control deck, he plays his aggro deck in a control style manner.

Quest decks are by definition combo decks, once you get your reward done, the game is either over the moment you play your reward or 2-3 turns later in most cases. This gets even more obvious if you ever played against someone that mileld their quest reward by accident, no win possible after that happens except very fringe caes (opponent also mills his reward e.g.)

Also control decks have nothing to do with being inevitable, control decks win with card quality, they run you out of ressources until their average card quality trumps yours, rattlegore is not inevitable, there is counterplay to it, same for N'Zoth, Ysera or any other card run as top end in standard control decks, cards that are inevitable however are warlock quest reward and ignite, even if you were to paly a card that granted you 1000 armor every single turn, you would still lose, and there is absolutely nothing you can do against it (except killing your opponent before he does)

You are right by saying there are many non OTK decks out there, agree on that, but almost every single deck that is played right is either combo or aggro, you also might look up the definition of midrange while you are at it, only deck that currently fits that description is secret paladin.

This is the second worst meta behind Gadgetzan for me. I'd have taken quest rogues again over this.

The mid-range decks feel like aggro decks, and when you sprinkle in a battlemaster or two the burst is so insane they can also feel like combo if you can't clear the board every single turn. paladin is especially toxic in this regard, there are no answers in the game to deal with any of it if they draw right. The combo decks feel like aggro decks becasue they have finshed drawing like their entire deck by turn 8. The actual aggro decks, like elemental shaman are just completely bonkers at this point.

Watching a warlock cycle half their deck on turn 4, damn near finishing their quest and banking up a shitload of damage is ridiculous. Mage is just barely tolerable post nerf, but it still sucks to be on the end of infinite ignite chains that rapidly start matching pyroblasts for damage for fuck all mana...and they just keep on shuffling more lol.

Doing it yourself with the majoirity of these decks feels cheap and dirty, you know as you curve out your hand your opponent never had any chance. And being on the recieving end  of this shit just sucks, straight up. Meta decks have always been unfair - but it's on a whole new level right now.

The only person enjoying this meta is Timmy.

Quote from Shango >>

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from Shango >>

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from Mini1994 >>

The amount of viable decks is the single dumbest argument and metric that exists for evaluating the health of a meta and OCG/TCG as a whole, and should be entirely disregarded. It is absolute nonsense. In fact, in trying to use it as your metric, you have instead just made an attempt to counter an ACTUAL argument and metric for the health of the game: How much variability is there.

Right now, the game has only 2 different decks. I give 0 shits about whether or not the deck is a priest, a hunter, a paladin, mage, warlock or whatever. That's arbitrary, and it doesn't matter at all. In standard right now, there are 2 decks: Extreme aggro, or OTK combo.

 First, let's remember what OTK means: One-Turn Kill. That means the deck has to be capable of dealing at least 30 damage in a single turn. Anything less than that, and it's just a combo burst, which is not nearly as unhealthy. In many cases, it may just be a control deck with an actual win condition.

Here are some Tier 1 and 2 decks that are not aggro or OTK:

• Secret Paladin, the top deck at the moment, is not aggro. It is midrange.
• Deathrattle Demon Hunter is the most midrange deck you'll ever see.
• Handbuff Paladin plays like midrange. (Battlemaster certainly makes it capable of OTK damage, but it can win without that.)
• Quest Shaman is a control deck. It may get bursty at the end, but it does not usually take you from 30 to 0 in a single turn.
• Rush Warrior is midrange.
• Quest Warrior is midrange.
• Quest Mage, which isn't even a top deck but is one everyone likes to complain about, is arguably a control deck. It is designed to keep the board clear and deals a big burst at the end, but not usually 30 in a single turn unless you let the game go on forever. That's not so different from the way control has always played -- inevitability is a hallmark of control archetypes.
• Some Warlock decks, with their massive healing and heavy removal, are control. The ones people hate most are combo, for sure, but there are viable Warlock decks that do not use combos or OTK.

I think a big part of the problem is one of terminology. People don't really understand the difference between OTK combo and the inevitability of control.

Control now has real win conditions, and it reaches them faster. That can feel like an OTK, but it's usually not even technically a combo. And hey, guess what -- in control vs. control, the winner is the one that reaches its win condition first. That's why really slow control decks are having trouble these days. They still lose to real combo decks, and now they also lose to faster control decks.

 You are simple wrong here, yes an ideal combo aims to kill your opponent in one turn, however any deck that is not capable of doing so is not automaticly not a combo deck. The "combo deck" term has been established long before hearthstone has even been a thing (and combo doesn ot mean anything different in hearthstone)

Combo deck is a term for a deck of (usually sixty) Magic: The Gathering cards that aims to win the game using a relatively small number of cards that instantly or very quickly win the game when combined (hence the name "combo").^[1] Because of this win strategy, a common motif among combo decks is an emphasis put on the ability to find specific cards quickly and win as fast as possible.

Almost all current quest decks are by definition combo decks, it only happens so that you start with one piece of the combo in your starting hand. The difference between a control and a combo deck usually comes in the form of value, a typical control deck aims to play the "null game". Answer everything your opponent does until you reach a point in the game where you can start dropping your own threats, which in contrast to combo decks dont just end the game the moment the card is played or even the turn after, Rattlegore is a perfect example of this.

 I was very careful to define OTK, not "combo." So thanks, you've just proved how pervasive the terminology problem is.

Many of the hated decks are indeed both control and combo (because the two are not mutually exclusive), but they are not "OTK" as so many people call them.

And, of course, my main point went unnoticed because people think they can "win" a thread by nitpicking ... But I'll re-state it in case you missed it: There are plenty of decks out there that are not Aggro or OTK -- in fact, the front-runners in this meta are neither of those.

 Combo and Control are mutually exklsuive, i dont know how many times this cnversation ahs been had in the past but jsut because a face hunter plays for board against shadow priest does not mean he is playing a control deck, he plays his aggro deck in a control style manner.

Quest decks are by definition combo decks, once you get your reward done, the game is either over the moment you play your reward or 2-3 turns later in most cases. This gets even more obvious if you ever played against someone that mileld their quest reward by accident, no win possible after that happens except very fringe caes (opponent also mills his reward e.g.)

Also control decks have nothing to do with being inevitable, control decks win with card quality, they run you out of ressources until their average card quality trumps yours, rattlegore is not inevitable, there is counterplay to it, same for N'Zoth, Ysera or any other card run as top end in standard control decks, cards that are inevitable however are warlock quest reward and ignite, even if you were to paly a card that granted you 1000 armor every single turn, you would still lose, and there is absolutely nothing you can do against it (except killing your opponent before he does)

You are right by saying there are many non OTK decks out there, agree on that, but almost every single deck that is played right is either combo or aggro, you also might look up the definition of midrange while you are at it, only deck that currently fits that description is secret paladin.

In magic every control deck has a combo finisher  

Quote from Shango >>

 Combo and Control are mutually exklsuive, i dont know how many times this cnversation ahs been had in the past but jsut because a face hunter plays for board against shadow priest does not mean he is playing a control deck, he plays his aggro deck in a control style manner.

 Your example of two aggro decks duking it out has nothing to do with combo or control. No, they are not mutually exclusive. Combo can be aggressive, control, or midrange, depending on how quickly it reaches its combo and what it does to stay alive in the meantime.

Quote from Shango >>

Quest decks are by definition combo decks, once you get your reward done, the game is either over the moment you play your reward or 2-3 turns later in most cases. This gets even more obvious if you ever played against someone that mileld their quest reward by accident, no win possible after that happens except very fringe caes (opponent also mills his reward e.g.)

 Quest decks are not part of any definition. You just made that up and tried to pass it off as a fact. The Rogue and Druid Questlines in particular do not necessarily end the game. They merely provide powerful tools. Depending on what the opponent is doing, nearly any game with a Questline game can continue for many turns past the completion of the quest, and it's not always a fringe thing.

Quote from Shango >>

Also control decks have nothing to do with being inevitable, control decks win with card quality, they run you out of ressources until their average card quality trumps yours, rattlegore is not inevitable, there is counterplay to it, same for N'Zoth, Ysera or any other card run as top end in standard control decks, cards that are inevitable however are warlock quest reward and ignite, even if you were to paly a card that granted you 1000 armor every single turn, you would still lose, and there is absolutely nothing you can do against it (except killing your opponent before he does)

 I guess we learned our words from different teachers. This article from the MtG website is on my side, though, so maybe you should read it, especially the large section titled "Inevitablility."

Quote from Shango >>

You are right by saying there are many non OTK decks out there, agree on that, but almost every single deck that is played right is either combo or aggro, you also might look up the definition of midrange while you are at it, only deck that currently fits that description is secret paladin.

 If you don't think Deathrattle Demon Hunter is a midrange deck, there is no point in continuing this discussion. We seem to be speaking entirely different languages.

Quote from FortyDust>>

Quote from Shango>>

Quest decks are by definition combo decks, once you get your reward done, the game is either over the moment you play your reward or 2-3 turns later in most cases. This gets even more obvious if you ever played against someone that mileld their quest reward by accident, no win possible after that happens except very fringe caes (opponent also mills his reward e.g.)

 Quest decks are not part of any definition. You just made that up and tried to pass it off as a fact. The Rogue and Druid Questlines in particular do not necessarily end the game. They merely provide powerful tools. Depending on what the opponent is doing, nearly any game with a Questline game can continue for many turns past the completion of the quest, and it's not always a fringe thing.

Quote from Shango>>

Also control decks have nothing to do with being inevitable, control decks win with card quality, they run you out of ressources until their average card quality trumps yours, rattlegore is not inevitable, there is counterplay to it, same for N'Zoth, Ysera or any other card run as top end in standard control decks, cards that are inevitable however are warlock quest reward and ignite, even if you were to paly a card that granted you 1000 armor every single turn, you would still lose, and there is absolutely nothing you can do against it (except killing your opponent before he does)

 I guess we learned our words from different teachers. This article from the MtG website is on my side, though, so maybe you should read it, especially the large section titled "Inevitablility." 

Yes that is why i said in an earlier post "almost all quest decks are combo decks" excluding precisely rogue and druid. And even though questines are not part of a definition the perfectly fit the definition for combo decks i linked earlier.

I was not aware the term "inevitable" is established in magic, i read the article and its basically just a fancy term for late game power.
I made the mistake of taking it more literally as in "something that can not be stopped/will always happen".

But here comes the problem, while a control deck is built around the premise of being unstopable in the late game, current combo decks are built around the premise of being inevitable way earlier, which means inevitability is not an indicator for a deck belonging to the control archetype.

The definition i gave for combo decks does apply to (most) quest decks, no matter how you try to spin it, simple because they dont exist within MTG does not mean we cant use common sense to aplly existing definitions to new concepts.

Quote from Shango >>

But here comes the problem, while a control deck is built around the premise of being unstopable in the late game, current combo decks are built around the premise of being inevitable way earlier, which means inevitability is not an indicator for a deck belonging to the control archetype.

One way to look at control is that it is one end of a speed spectrum, with aggro at the other end. In that context, control is always present but can look very different from one meta to another. In the Stormwind meta, control is simply getting things done sooner than it used to. Obviously (as the two of us have shown), it's arguable whether that turns it into combo -- but that just semantics, anyway.

The important takeaway is that if inevitability is achieved too early in the game, a significant portion of the player base is going to feel dissatisfied. So where is the cutoff? When is it acceptable for inevitability to occur? My personal feeling is that Turn 10 is a natural point to place that marker because that is when any deck is able to play its most expensive card, but letting it happen at Turn 9 isn't the end of the world. Turn 6, of course, is ridiculous.

2. Make ignite cost 3 mana, and start with 1 damage.  The card is already an infinite damage engine, it shouldn't start as a baseline ok card If u make ignite 3 mana un Nerf encanter flow. 

Quote from I_Feel_Ur_Pain >>

2. Make ignite cost 3 mana, and start with 1 damage.  The card is already an infinite damage engine, it shouldn't start as a baseline ok card If u make ignite 3 mana un Nerf encanter flow. 

Just say you want the card deleted, man. 3 mana start at 1 dmg means you need to play, draw and replay it six(!) times to get a... slightly better Fireball.

The game as a whole in every single mode is definitely in its worst state ever.

Standard is boring, solved, and complete trash. It's not fun either. Nothing about current standard makes me want to even try anymore. Certain cards and classes are just a cut above the rest and the recent "nerfs" changed very little to make anything even remotely enjoyable in standard.

Wild is a shit show.

Bgs is complete trash compared to where it used to be a year or so ago. The mode probably single handedly saved the game, yet they refuse to develop it further beyond a trash casino mode that usually ends up being a waste of 20 mins 75% of the time.

Arena...my how i used to love you. Now you are a complete and utter chaotic mode. I don't know why anyone would even waste time trying it anymore. Personally, I gave up on it since so much random nonsense takes place in it now. Only reason I play is if I'm given a free ticket.

Dont have much of an opinion on Duels. Tried it once. Didnt like it. I never really enjoyed Dungeon Runs in the first place though.

In short, the devs suck. 

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from Shango >>

But here comes the problem, while a control deck is built around the premise of being unstopable in the late game, current combo decks are built around the premise of being inevitable way earlier, which means inevitability is not an indicator for a deck belonging to the control archetype.

One way to look at control is that it is one end of a speed spectrum, with aggro at the other end. In that context, control is always present but can look very different from one meta to another. In the Stormwind meta, control is simply getting things done sooner than it used to. Obviously (as the two of us have shown), it's arguable whether that turns it into combo -- but that just semantics, anyway.

The important takeaway is that if inevitability is achieved too early in the game, a significant portion of the player base is going to feel dissatisfied. So where is the cutoff? When is it acceptable for inevitability to occur? My personal feeling is that Turn 10 is a natural point to place that marker because that is when any deck is able to play its most expensive card, but letting it happen at Turn 9 isn't the end of the world. Turn 6, of course, is ridiculous.

 There are no control decks in the top end of the Stormwind meta, Blizzard professionally killed off that archetype.
If you think a deck is control because it has 1 removal card in it, i don't know what you've been doing in all those mtg years you claim to have had....

The single deck that has a control style play is Quest priest and that one is currently low tier 4.
Please look at https://hsreplay.net/meta/ and tell me any control deck that is in tier 1 or 2. Hint: there isn't, it's all aggro, midrange or combo decks.

Someone forgot Jade Idol...

Quote from MakeWarlockWinGamesAgain >>

Someone forgot Jade Idol...

 Not even close to the damage warlock quest can do in Wild and you can tech with 6 manas minion.

What you can do against quest warlock except playing quest warlock itself?