Cards that destroy stuff from your deck should not hurt aggro decks. It hurts control because they get closer to fatigue, and it hurts combo because it can destroy their win con, but aggro losing cards just means your other aggressive cards get found earlier. They should never really hit fatigue either way, if the deck is built right
i play in Diamond/Legend and i have never seen a face hunter hesitate from throwing every single card they have into the board as fast as possible. There is no trading or interaction with minions unless it’s from a Piercing Shot or a Trampling Rhino for more face damage. Shadow Priests are just as bad
If your point is that aggro takes no skill, you've failed to make that point as you describe someone piloting their deck correctly. Aggro decks are supposed to avoid board interaction because trading minions runs counter to the whole point of aggro.
Further, you do not know what cards your opponent is holding, so it's very possible that they are putting some thought into choosing WHICH threats to put out for maximum efficiency. If you are taking long, thoughtful turns, the aggro player does not need a lot of time during their own turn to make these decisions, so it makes sense that you wouldn't see any hesitation.
A deck whose play style differs from what you like to play or what you are good at does not mean it takes no skill. It probably just takes a skill set you don't recognize because you have not cultivated it in your own gameplay.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Aggro takes no skill v. control takes no skill… answer is hearthstone takes no skill and is simply algorithms progressed by humans with illusion of a game?
It’s always funny because people have this unwarranted notion that “control takes skill because it plays more expensive cards. Aggro does not because it floods the board.”
It’s the complete opposite, and anyone of worth knows it. Aggro/tempo decks need to be mindful of how much to commit to the board. You can’t commit so much that one removal blows you out, while committing enough that you threaten the win.
Control has no decisions to make against the Aggro player whatsoever. You either have the answer to their threats a few turns in a row and win, or don’t and lose. There’s no skill in “hmm, my opponent played a wide board, and I have brawl, should I brawl.” This is a broad example, it makes the point.
I am a control player, but I hate other control players with this kind of mindset. Playing expensive cards and wanting to play more turns doesn’t mean those turns take more skill. Having more cards in hand does not equate more skill.
Aggro and control have different playstyles. It's not like one takes more skill than the other, just that the skill you need to develop is quite different from each other.
Aggro teaches you to value tempo, play cards so they're in play and think about what the opponent could do to remove the board so you play around it.
Control teaches you to value your resources, to exhaust the opponent so you win by card and board advantage.
Depending on the context, you will sometimes be forced to play control as an aggro deck or play aggressive as a control deck so having the knowledge of both archetypes makes you a more complete player.
It’s always funny because people have this unwarranted notion that “control takes skill because it plays more expensive cards. Aggro does not because it floods the board.”
It’s the complete opposite, and anyone of worth knows it. Aggro/tempo decks need to be mindful of how much to commit to the board. You can’t commit so much that one removal blows you out, while committing enough that you threaten the win.
Control has no decisions to make against the Aggro player whatsoever. You either have the answer to their threats a few turns in a row and win, or don’t and lose. There’s no skill in “hmm, my opponent played a wide board, and I have brawl, should I brawl.” This is a broad example, it makes the point.
I am a control player, but I hate other control players with this kind of mindset. Playing expensive cards and wanting to play more turns doesn’t mean those turns take more skill. Having more cards in hand does not equate more skill.
I think the rationale is less about playing expensive cards and more about having to make the most of the limited tools available in the first 5 turns (which is basically when aggro needs to win against control). Although given you have very little control over what these cards are this does rather remove some of the decision making.
On the flip side I think aggro used to have to think about comitting to board and knowing which board clears were likely etc. but now they just flood with everything and assume they'll get a cheap reload and/or, the board clear wont be enough to stall the damage (board clears really haven't kept up with minions in this regard). As a point of note, one of the most persistant and succesful aggro decks (Face Hunter) is exactly the kind of "play on curve and dump your hand" deck that you think doens't exist anymore.
It's a shame that it's ended up this way as aggro vs. control matches used to be some of the most tense matches (as a control player). Now you pretty much know from your opening hand if you're likely to win or not. The game needs both archetypes to be viable in their own right, and not just as a response to some other broken deck (which is where we've often been for the last few, quest based, meta's).
Personally, I prefer control/combo playstyle, but I also enjoyed aggro decks in the past. I kinda hate to die on turn 5 sometimes, but that's just life :D
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Cards that destroy stuff from your deck should not hurt aggro decks. It hurts control because they get closer to fatigue, and it hurts combo because it can destroy their win con, but aggro losing cards just means your other aggressive cards get found earlier. They should never really hit fatigue either way, if the deck is built right
Why would a true aggro deck care about cards in their deck being destroyed?
If your point is that aggro takes no skill, you've failed to make that point as you describe someone piloting their deck correctly. Aggro decks are supposed to avoid board interaction because trading minions runs counter to the whole point of aggro.
Further, you do not know what cards your opponent is holding, so it's very possible that they are putting some thought into choosing WHICH threats to put out for maximum efficiency. If you are taking long, thoughtful turns, the aggro player does not need a lot of time during their own turn to make these decisions, so it makes sense that you wouldn't see any hesitation.
A deck whose play style differs from what you like to play or what you are good at does not mean it takes no skill. It probably just takes a skill set you don't recognize because you have not cultivated it in your own gameplay.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Yeah cause face hunter require skills , nice try
aggro players deserve worse
Aggro takes no skill v. control takes no skill… answer is hearthstone takes no skill and is simply algorithms progressed by humans with illusion of a game?
Control players lives matter too.
Done.
Aggro and control have different playstyles. It's not like one takes more skill than the other, just that the skill you need to develop is quite different from each other.
Aggro teaches you to value tempo, play cards so they're in play and think about what the opponent could do to remove the board so you play around it.
Control teaches you to value your resources, to exhaust the opponent so you win by card and board advantage.
Depending on the context, you will sometimes be forced to play control as an aggro deck or play aggressive as a control deck so having the knowledge of both archetypes makes you a more complete player.
I think the rationale is less about playing expensive cards and more about having to make the most of the limited tools available in the first 5 turns (which is basically when aggro needs to win against control). Although given you have very little control over what these cards are this does rather remove some of the decision making.
On the flip side I think aggro used to have to think about comitting to board and knowing which board clears were likely etc. but now they just flood with everything and assume they'll get a cheap reload and/or, the board clear wont be enough to stall the damage (board clears really haven't kept up with minions in this regard). As a point of note, one of the most persistant and succesful aggro decks (Face Hunter) is exactly the kind of "play on curve and dump your hand" deck that you think doens't exist anymore.
It's a shame that it's ended up this way as aggro vs. control matches used to be some of the most tense matches (as a control player). Now you pretty much know from your opening hand if you're likely to win or not. The game needs both archetypes to be viable in their own right, and not just as a response to some other broken deck (which is where we've often been for the last few, quest based, meta's).
Personally, I prefer control/combo playstyle, but I also enjoyed aggro decks in the past. I kinda hate to die on turn 5 sometimes, but that's just life :D