I disagree with your anecdote about Craig Wescoe being a Face/Aggro player. Aggro player he is, yes. Face? not so much.
You see, if you have to make the M:tG comparison, Face deck is actually Burn deck. The point of aggro deck is to contest for board and push for win. Face deck doesn't do that. Face decks are designed to get enough damage to deal exactly lethal, regardless of the game state. So it is like a Burn deck. Think of a string of spells like this: Lightning Bolt (3 dmg), Incinerate (3 dmg), Ball Lightning (6 dmg), Hero of Oxid Ridge (4 dmg), Lava Axe (5 dmg). The calculation: your opponent has 20 life, so you do this string of damage - 3+3+6+4+5 = 21 dmg. The rest of the deck is just a repetition of said cards to increase the consistency of the deck. Does Burn deck cares if you bring out a 16/16? no. Because you are dead. Face decks are just the same. Steady ShotLeper GnomeKill CommandWolfriderArcane GolemLeeroy Jenkins.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Are you not entertained?! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!"
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity." - Maximus Decimus Meridius
I disagree with your anecdote about Craig Wescoe being a Face/Aggro player. Aggro player he is, yes. Face? not so much.
You see, if you have to make the M:tG comparison, Face deck is actually Burn deck. The point of aggro deck is to contest for board and push for win. Face deck doesn't do that. Face decks are designed to get enough damage to deal exactly lethal, regardless of the game state. So it is like a Burn deck. Think of a string of spells like this: Lightning Bolt (3 dmg), Incinerate (3 dmg), Ball Lightning (6 dmg), Hero of Oxid Ridge (4 dmg), Lava Axe (5 dmg). The calculation: your opponent has 20 life, so you do this string of damage - 3+3+6+4+5 = 21 dmg. The rest of the deck is just a repetition of said cards to increase the consistency of the deck. Does Burn deck cares if you bring out a 16/16? no. Because you are dead. Face decks are just the same. Steady ShotLeper GnomeKill CommandWolfriderArcane GolemLeeroy Jenkins.
1. your prior post was actually very informative. I never did know where 'huntard' came from. Just assumed it was similar to 'toxic' or 'cancer'. Meh, that makes much more sense.
2. The explanatio nmakes sense. I'm thinking the reason why 'burn deck' didn't get attributed to hunter is because of mage. When they ran their aggro deck, they used fireball and the like and got the term 'burn mage'. Since everyone saw the big fireball and thought 'oh yeah, BURNNNNN." they didn't link any other deck in the same fashion even though both 'burn mage' and 'face hunter' used the same technique.
That and we have the BIG OLD FACE for the hero...so yeah.
And now I got the All about the Face parody in my head again.
Sometimes in after a control vs control matchup I feel like "Ha Garrosh, you should have put your faith in the light" but other times I'm like "Anduin you're a priest, you're meant to be saving souls not slowly crushing them into dust". My point being, sometimes they can be thrilling and full of strategy and intrigue whereas other times it can be slow, drawn out and dull, especially if its control after control after control.
I love combo the most, and control and aggro I like equally. But sometimes, doing something like slapping a cold blood on an argent squire and going face, knowing your opponent will still have to 2 for 1 into it or take even more face damage to get rid of it, is just as satisfying as timing a brawl perfectly or doing an amazing sylvanas into steal doomsayer board clear. Aggro requires strategy too. And it should be easy to spot the difference between a good face hunter and a bad face hunter (not every decision they make is the same).
I said it many times before and I will always say it: If aggro is brainless, then the brainfull control should be able to find a solution, or else, they don't have the right to talk down to whom used a way to efficiently surpass them.
The problem is the imbalance of difficulty. Control decks CAN win against aggro decks, but in the case of face hunter you need exceptional draws to stall AND recover from their damage.
The poster is right, those who are playing facetard are little scared kids who are usually beaten up at school or so awkward that they have no friends at all, so they playing facetard to at least have a little achievement in their pathetic, miserable life.
No face hunter is just strong and most decks have a hard time countering the deck. As it was said, the scrub mentality of inserting arbitrary rules or going ad hominem does NOT make you the better player and you DON'T win the game through that.
both 'burn mage' and 'face hunter' used the same technique.
They don't. Face hunter is a race deck that excels at putting everything to the face while the mage burn deck consists of stalling and collecting the burn cards like Frostbolt, Ice Lance and Fireball to then quickly burn the opponent in one swoop.
I disagree with your anecdote about Craig Wescoe being a Face/Aggro player. Aggro player he is, yes. Face? not so much.
You see, if you have to make the M:tG comparison, Face deck is actually Burn deck. The point of aggro deck is to contest for board and push for win. Face deck doesn't do that. Face decks are designed to get enough damage to deal exactly lethal, regardless of the game state. So it is like a Burn deck. Think of a string of spells like this: Lightning Bolt (3 dmg), Incinerate (3 dmg), Ball Lightning (6 dmg), Hero of Oxid Ridge (4 dmg), Lava Axe (5 dmg). The calculation: your opponent has 20 life, so you do this string of damage - 3+3+6+4+5 = 21 dmg. The rest of the deck is just a repetition of said cards to increase the consistency of the deck. Does Burn deck cares if you bring out a 16/16? no. Because you are dead. Face decks are just the same. Steady ShotLeper GnomeKill CommandWolfriderArcane GolemLeeroy Jenkins.
1. your prior post was actually very informative. I never did know where 'huntard' came from. Just assumed it was similar to 'toxic' or 'cancer'. Meh, that makes much more sense.
2. The explanatio nmakes sense. I'm thinking the reason why 'burn deck' didn't get attributed to hunter is because of mage. When they ran their aggro deck, they used fireball and the like and got the term 'burn mage'. Since everyone saw the big fireball and thought 'oh yeah, BURNNNNN." they didn't link any other deck in the same fashion even though both 'burn mage' and 'face hunter' used the same technique.
That and we have the BIG OLD FACE for the hero...so yeah.
And now I got the All about the Face parody in my head again.
The problem with people not recognizing hunter as "Burn deck (in M:tG terms)" is not about the name. The problem is they think Face = Aggro. And that's a big mistake.
So you see, while the same line of play results in both players having no board, if you are playing against Warlock zoo, you are still at some 28 life; while if you are playing against Face Hunter, you are already at 30-2-2-4-6=16 life, a very dangerous life total that you are having.
As you can see, Aggro and Face are two different monsters. That's why life gain + body is so good against Facehunter while still mediocre against zoo, because life gain negates the damage burst at your face, while being a face deck means it doesn't have high quality minions. On the other hand, aggro decks are packed with high-quality minions that are well-suited for contesting the board and can be cast on curve to put pressure against your opponents. So if you cast Earthen Ring Farseer, the facehunter may cry since not only the farseer undo 3 dmgs that is likely created with the cost of a card, he has to also spend a card (possibly Wolfrider.. why I wanna type Facerider...) to deal with the body. For zoo I just run Spider Tank, kill farseer, smash face x 2, wait to be dealt with. But when you are done with the Spider Tank, you might already be staring at 2 Piloted Shredder.
I want everyone to play face hunter so that way I can slowly crush them by just getting to late game and then just spam legendaries that they have no way of dealing with.
So at the end of the match I have 3 or 4 legends on my side and they just have some stupid wolfrider or something.
If most of your games cause you to sigh "oh god, not xyz again!", do you want those games to be half an hour long?
The question is whether you enjoy the strategic part of playing a tug of war in the control meta or the damage race in the aggro meta.
I enjoy both. Which is why I'm glad I see both. But if the game was to degenerate to the point where only one was viable, I'd prefer it to be the damage race of the aggro meta because that's faster so it would get me to the occasional opponent who defied the meta and played something "unviable" faster.
Okay, there's a big misunderstanding between burn and aggro, and the OP hasn't been too clear on which he means, but probably both. MTG is interesting in that Standard burn decks often play "creature burn" in a similar way to Hearthstone.
At the end of the day though, hunter is a deck, it's a good deck, it's got big weaknesses, it's quite predictable with little room for innovation, it's part of the meta, and you have to deal with it's existence, one way or another. If everyone is playing hunter, all you have to do is play reasonably and counter it and you'll rise up to the point where you're facing a bunch of interesting decks that can keep hunter down in the rankings.
I said it many times before and I will always say it: If aggro is brainless, then the brainfull control should be able to find a solution, or else, they don't have the right to talk down to whom used a way to efficiently surpass them.
The problem is the imbalance of difficulty. Control decks CAN win against aggro decks, but in the case of face hunter you need exceptional draws to stall AND recover from their damage.
That's because aggro is meant to defeat Control. They aren't meant to be equal. Aggro has a natural advantage to Control. That's not a bug: that's a feature. You're supposed to fight aggro decks with midrange/Combo decks, not try to make a square peg fit into a round hole.
If most of your games cause you to sigh "oh god, not xyz again!", do you want those games to be half an hour long?
The question is whether you enjoy the strategic part of playing a tug of war in the control meta or the damage race in the aggro meta.
Neither. The game is MEANT to cycle between them and combo. A pure aggro meta is just a race to see who put the cheapest cards in the deck. A pure control deck is a race to see who's deck is the slowest and greediest. Both will result in poor quality games.
A good card game involves players never feeling comfortable with one deck all of their lives, choosing to speed up when the meta slows down, combo blast when the meta speeds up, and slow down when the meta bursts, with others jumping around to try to out-flank the meta.
The poster is right, those who are playing facetard are little scared kids who are usually beaten up at school or so awkward that they have no friends at all, so they playing facetard to at least have a little achievement in their pathetic, miserable life.
No face hunter is just strong and most decks have a hard time countering the deck. As it was said, the scrub mentality of inserting arbitrary rules or going ad hominem does NOT make you the better player and you DON'T win the game through that.
both 'burn mage' and 'face hunter' used the same technique.
They don't. Face hunter is a race deck that excels at putting everything to the face while the mage burn deck consists of stalling and collecting the burn cards like Frostbolt, Ice Lance and Fireball to then quickly burn the opponent in one swoop.
That's Freeze mage, not burn mage. Freeze mage stalls the game (freezes) until they can burst an opponent down. Note that even your statement of 'stalling and collecting' has nothing to do with Burn decks even in MTG. You don't stall and collect in a burn deck: you just go for the kill.
Stalling is a Combo/Control mindset. Note though that freeze mage isn't actually waiting for their burn spells. They are waiting for Archmage or Alexstransa. Once either card shows up, then they play that and finish the opponent off with burst. Thus it's a late game Combo deck, which explains why it dies so hard to Control Warrior.
Burn mage appeared about a month or so before Naxx. It's a rush deck with jugglers and leper gnomes and the like. The idea is to dump as many cards down as possible and go all face, then once the minions are all gone find your spells with card draw and wipe them out with a final blast.
Note that this one is slightly updated as a deathrattle deck with undertaker. Looks VERY familiar to the face hunter mentality doesn it?
For the record it doesn't work as well since the spell system is more messier to deal with, the hero power isn't as strong to the face, there's no trap spells for AOE+face damage, and no weapons.
That's because aggro is meant to defeat Control. They aren't meant to be equal. Aggro has a natural advantage to Control. That's not a bug: that's a feature. You're supposed to fight aggro decks with midrange/Combo decks, not try to make a square peg fit into a round hole.
You and the OP have this exactly backwards. Control priest and control warrior are by far the best decks vs face hunter. If this a game of rock, paper, scissors, then: midrange loses to aggro, aggro loses to control, and control loses to midrange.
If the OP is playing a control deck and routinely losing to aggro, then he is doing it wrong. Ive had a lot of success with Priest lately, because it has such a great matchup vs. Face hunter and zoo. The problem isn't that he is playing control, its that his deck is way too greedy and isn't tuned properly for the meta, or that he's just plain playing it poorly.
Huntard has been called that since WoW.It is not because of the decks that are being played now ,it just fits (: . And i don't like that you say you have not played one game as aggro and complain.Yes,some ppl prefer aggro and others control and yes,aggro seems to be a bit opressive at times, but the same can be said abt control.Have you never raged when you lost against priest because he just had all the answers? Personally i enjoy playing aggro,combo and control and switch arround when i feel like it .
Having every single answer to what I play is more a matter of luck than skill, so I'm more cool with that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
Poll should really have a third option for Combo, if you want the classic card game trinity, and really should have a fourth option for not wanting it "dominated" by any of the above.
Given the incredibly limited options, I picked Aggro. Why? Well, if the meta must be dominated by one deck style, at least let it be one that leads to quick games. If most of your games cause you to sigh "oh god, not xyz again!", do you want those games to be half an hour long?
That's exactly my point, many people, such as yourself, prefer success over fun, why play hearthstone if all you want to do is to have a "Vee" on the accomplishment: Achieve legend?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
I don't wish to spoil your sole reason of consolation, but the whole matter of principles have been created and used by some players to ease the magnitude of losing due to not being able to properly compete.
The players who win through aggro/face archetypes do not hack or crack their opponent's game, they simply use existing cards to create strong decks and battle with them. It becomes their opponent's part to either forge a deck to counter them if they are prevalent (like control Priest and Warrior for example) or play a deck that can have better momentum over them (some Rogue variations for example).
I said it many times before and I will always say it: If aggro is brainless, then the brainfull control should be able to find a solution, or else, they don't have the right to talk down to whom used a way to efficiently surpass them.
Fair point, I agree with you. Still, as someone who hasn't declared himself "brainfull" and as most of the people who play hearthstone are not "brainfulls" just "brains" it kinda ruins the gaming experience for them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
It's interesting to see a post that so blatantly assigns some kind of moral virtue to not playing aggressive decks, since that's very obviously what you're talking about. The idea that there are "principles" involved in the game related to what deck you play strikes me as rather ludicrous. It's a strategy people use to console themselves when they lose. "Well, I might have lost, but let me make up a reason why I'm still better than them to make myself feel better." That's all that's really being done here.
If you want to stick to your guns that's great, and I commend you for it, but it would be nice if you didn't pretend that somehow made you more virtuous than other people.
Yes, you're right, it is what's being done here, but it is the truth. People hate facing hutards, people "hate" themselves for playing hutards, just look at comments on youtube on what people say about people who play this class. You are more virtuous if you play a strategy game for purposes of fun, challenging, and not for success and writing a "vee" in the legend achievement. Yes, you are ruining the game by doing so, that is what I believe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
That's because aggro is meant to defeat Control. They aren't meant to be equal. Aggro has a natural advantage to Control. That's not a bug: that's a feature. You're supposed to fight aggro decks with midrange/Combo decks, not try to make a square peg fit into a round hole.
You and the OP have this exactly backwards. Control priest and control warrior are by far the best decks vs face hunter. If this a game of rock, paper, scissors, then: midrange loses to aggro, aggro loses to control, and control loses to midrange.
If the OP is playing a control deck and routinely losing to aggro, then he is doing it wrong. Ive had a lot of success with Priest lately, because it has such a great matchup vs. Face hunter and zoo. The problem isn't that he is playing control, its that his deck is way too greedy and isn't tuned properly for the meta, or that he's just plain playing it poorly.
Priest isn't really played as a control deck. Most of your threats are along the midrange level and you carry about 1-2 big boys at most. The most expensive plays are just tech combos that stop threats rather than present them. You win by having a large board of fairly beefy minions that NEVER DIE thanks to your hero power and spells. That's NOT a control deck: that's a midrange deck. And you very much are anti-aggro. You also tend to fall apart to control decks when designed that way.
Control warrior is a very interesting beast and probably the best example of 'the exception' which is why he's the only natural control deck that survives no matter the meta. Though do note that even they dropped a LOT of 'control' in their deck (remember when they carried 6+ legendaries?) and put in a lot of midrange threats.
If you want to see issues with control decks in an aggro meta, check out how well Paladin and handlock handle a zoo or face hunter deck. Ramp druid as well technically though ramp is rather odd to call 'control' as is. Also play a priest AS a control deck with 3+ high mana big boys.
You say the issue is that he's playing his control deck greedily. That's sort of the point. Control decks stall the game as long as possible then start dropping big game-ending bombs you can't handle. Going 'anti-aggro' means giving that up and taking up a faster, more midrangy style. in other words, giving up being a control deck and leaning more towards the midrange type.
Yes, you're right, it is what's being done here, but it is the truth. People hate facing hutards, people "hate" themselves for playing hutards, just look at comments on youtube on what people say about people who play this class. You are more virtuous if you play a strategy game for purposes of fun, challenging, and not for success and writing a "vee" in the legend achievement. Yes, you are ruining the game by doing so, that is what I believe.
Would you MIND not taking the less than .01% of the gaming population's opinion of the game and casting them up as the entire population? There's entire CLASSES of players who like fast running high win decks. Read this:
You sound like a Johnny. Playing a standard deck that just goes in and does damage picked up from some nameless website sounds like someone you use to torture people with. Hunter in the meta sounds like a mistake Blizzard didn't patch up during beta. That's fine for your case.
But others don't think that way. Spikes take pride in the challenge of beating you. You choose the deck you feel you are best at. They chose theirs. You lose, thus showing they made the better choice. Even if no 'skill' in-game was demonstrated, THEY chose the correct deck and you, who had just as many choices, didn't. To Spikes, it still counts. That's fun for them. That's honor for them. To them, whining on the forums for nerfs because you can't cut it is NOT fun and they wonder why you are doing this instead of finding a deck, or a game, that fits you better.
The point though is to stop demeaning people who aren't you, or thinking of them as captives stuck in a world they hate. Not everyone is so stuck in their mindset that, instead of adapting their deck to better face their opponents, must belittle them verbally, and yes, your post IS belittling them, because they aren't playing in the way YOU deem as honorable and fun.
I'll be blunt. Get over yourself. People have fun in different ways, Spikes, Johnnys, and Timmys. And they ALL enjoy their playstyle. Yours is not the best. Yours is not the most skill intensive. Yours is not the most fun. You are not the Answer to HS and those beneath you are not the problem.
So please, find the answer within yourself and get off your high horse.
What control deck are you playing that has a low win rate against hunters? Control players should be ecstatic whenever there is a hunter infestation. I have over 90% win rate against them with priest over the past few days.
What control deck are you playing that has a low win rate against hunters? Control players should be ecstatic whenever there is a hunter infestation. I have over 90% win rate against them with priest over the past few days.
Priest isn't a control deck.
It takes more than just having AOE and removal to be a control deck.
1) I didn't answer because I don't want the metagame to be 'dominated' by any one type of deck, I want a diverse metagame where all kinds of decks are represented. I think we have one.
2) I voted no because Face Hunter is just one of tier 1 decks in the metagame and probably not even the best one. Why would you nerf the 4th (or whatever it is) best deck in the format? That just makes for a less diverse metagame.
The game incentivizes wins/time in gold allocation (10 gold per 3 wins) and ranking up in ladder (it's a grind). Time is a finite resource to most players, so the best way to acquire gold or ranks is to play games that you can win (or lose) quickly and move on. Losing a 20-minute control slugfest is a bad investment.
If you really want to change the way people play Hunter, change the Hero Power. It specifically damages the opponent's face, and people complement this with cards that aid in damaging the opponent's face. It's synergy.
Thus:
Aggressive decks will continue to be popular until the game's incentive system changes to reward something other than wins/time.
Face Hunter will be the most popular of these until the hero power is changed, or until there are better tools to counter the deck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Feel free to add me if you play on NA! iMPose#1429
It's interesting to see a post that so blatantly assigns some kind of moral virtue to not playing aggressive decks, since that's very obviously what you're talking about. The idea that there are "principles" involved in the game related to what deck you play strikes me as rather ludicrous. It's a strategy people use to console themselves when they lose. "Well, I might have lost, but let me make up a reason why I'm still better than them to make myself feel better." That's all that's really being done here.
If you want to stick to your guns that's great, and I commend you for it, but it would be nice if you didn't pretend that somehow made you more virtuous than other people.
Yes, you're right, it is what's being done here, but it is the truth. People hate facing hutards, people "hate" themselves for playing hutards, just look at comments on youtube on what people say about people who play this class. You are more virtuous if you play a strategy game for purposes of fun, challenging, and not for success and writing a "vee" in the legend achievement. Yes, you are ruining the game by doing so, that is what I believe.
I can see that your approach to this subject is rather dogmatic, and so I won't bother trying to argue against it. You believe what you believe I seriously doubt any amount of discussion will change it.
I'll just say this on the subject. I play the decks I enjoy playing. If I'm playing a control deck it's because I'm having fun with it. If I'm playing combo it's because I'm enjoying the games. Guess what's happening when I'm playing aggro? I'm having fun. I have fun playing against control, and combo, and aggro. I enjoy this game, and I could not possibly care less what people in youtube comments say about any class. If I took the opinions of every entitled whiner with a chip on their shoulder seriously then I really wouldn't be having any fun.
Try to keep in mind that just because you feel a certain way it doesn't make you right. You're entitled to feel it, but that's worth next to nothing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nothing doing, traveler.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I disagree with your anecdote about Craig Wescoe being a Face/Aggro player. Aggro player he is, yes. Face? not so much.
You see, if you have to make the M:tG comparison, Face deck is actually Burn deck. The point of aggro deck is to contest for board and push for win. Face deck doesn't do that. Face decks are designed to get enough damage to deal exactly lethal, regardless of the game state. So it is like a Burn deck. Think of a string of spells like this: Lightning Bolt (3 dmg), Incinerate (3 dmg), Ball Lightning (6 dmg), Hero of Oxid Ridge (4 dmg), Lava Axe (5 dmg). The calculation: your opponent has 20 life, so you do this string of damage - 3+3+6+4+5 = 21 dmg. The rest of the deck is just a repetition of said cards to increase the consistency of the deck. Does Burn deck cares if you bring out a 16/16? no. Because you are dead. Face decks are just the same. Steady Shot Leper Gnome Kill Command Wolfrider Arcane Golem Leeroy Jenkins.
"Are you not entertained?! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!"
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity." - Maximus Decimus Meridius
1. your prior post was actually very informative. I never did know where 'huntard' came from. Just assumed it was similar to 'toxic' or 'cancer'. Meh, that makes much more sense.
2. The explanatio nmakes sense. I'm thinking the reason why 'burn deck' didn't get attributed to hunter is because of mage. When they ran their aggro deck, they used fireball and the like and got the term 'burn mage'. Since everyone saw the big fireball and thought 'oh yeah, BURNNNNN." they didn't link any other deck in the same fashion even though both 'burn mage' and 'face hunter' used the same technique.
That and we have the BIG OLD FACE for the hero...so yeah.
And now I got the All about the Face parody in my head again.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Sometimes in after a control vs control matchup I feel like "Ha Garrosh, you should have put your faith in the light" but other times I'm like "Anduin you're a priest, you're meant to be saving souls not slowly crushing them into dust". My point being, sometimes they can be thrilling and full of strategy and intrigue whereas other times it can be slow, drawn out and dull, especially if its control after control after control.
I love combo the most, and control and aggro I like equally. But sometimes, doing something like slapping a cold blood on an argent squire and going face, knowing your opponent will still have to 2 for 1 into it or take even more face damage to get rid of it, is just as satisfying as timing a brawl perfectly or doing an amazing sylvanas into steal doomsayer board clear. Aggro requires strategy too. And it should be easy to spot the difference between a good face hunter and a bad face hunter (not every decision they make is the same).
Kezan Tinkerer - http://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/fan-creations/45270-weekly-design-competition-19-submission-thread?comment=333
The problem is the imbalance of difficulty. Control decks CAN win against aggro decks, but in the case of face hunter you need exceptional draws to stall AND recover from their damage.
The question is whether you enjoy the strategic part of playing a tug of war in the control meta or the damage race in the aggro meta.
No face hunter is just strong and most decks have a hard time countering the deck. As it was said, the scrub mentality of inserting arbitrary rules or going ad hominem does NOT make you the better player and you DON'T win the game through that.
They don't. Face hunter is a race deck that excels at putting everything to the face while the mage burn deck consists of stalling and collecting the burn cards like Frostbolt, Ice Lance and Fireball to then quickly burn the opponent in one swoop.
The problem with people not recognizing hunter as "Burn deck (in M:tG terms)" is not about the name. The problem is they think Face = Aggro. And that's a big mistake.
Just imagine. If you are playing against warlock zoo, an aggro pure and simply. So he plays Leper Gnome. You counter with Mortal Coil. He plays Haunted Creeper. You counter with Ironbeak Owl. He plays Imp Gang Boss. You counter with Shadow Bolt. He plays Piloted Shredder. You counter with Darkbomb x 2.
Now, if you are playing against Face hunter. Leper Gnome. Mortal Coil. You still takes two. Mad Scientist. Ironbeak Owl. The Scientist's still gonna hit you two. Huffer. Shadow Bolt. You still take 4. Arcane Golem+Abusive Sergeant. Darkbomb x 2. You still take 6.
So you see, while the same line of play results in both players having no board, if you are playing against Warlock zoo, you are still at some 28 life; while if you are playing against Face Hunter, you are already at 30-2-2-4-6=16 life, a very dangerous life total that you are having.
If we extend a little bit into the mid-game. Against warlock zoo, a turn 5 Sludge Belcher pretty much buys you at least 2 turns; but against Face hunter, they just go Ironbeak Owl into Kill Command into Wolfrider into Steady Shot into Quick Shot.
As you can see, Aggro and Face are two different monsters. That's why life gain + body is so good against Facehunter while still mediocre against zoo, because life gain negates the damage burst at your face, while being a face deck means it doesn't have high quality minions. On the other hand, aggro decks are packed with high-quality minions that are well-suited for contesting the board and can be cast on curve to put pressure against your opponents. So if you cast Earthen Ring Farseer, the facehunter may cry since not only the farseer undo 3 dmgs that is likely created with the cost of a card, he has to also spend a card (possibly Wolfrider.. why I wanna type Facerider...) to deal with the body. For zoo I just run Spider Tank, kill farseer, smash face x 2, wait to be dealt with. But when you are done with the Spider Tank, you might already be staring at 2 Piloted Shredder.
People should learn what the "truth" is.
"Are you not entertained?! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!"
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity." - Maximus Decimus Meridius
I want everyone to play face hunter so that way I can slowly crush them by just getting to late game and then just spam legendaries that they have no way of dealing with.
So at the end of the match I have 3 or 4 legends on my side and they just have some stupid wolfrider or something.
:)
I enjoy both. Which is why I'm glad I see both. But if the game was to degenerate to the point where only one was viable, I'd prefer it to be the damage race of the aggro meta because that's faster so it would get me to the occasional opponent who defied the meta and played something "unviable" faster.
Okay, there's a big misunderstanding between burn and aggro, and the OP hasn't been too clear on which he means, but probably both. MTG is interesting in that Standard burn decks often play "creature burn" in a similar way to Hearthstone.
At the end of the day though, hunter is a deck, it's a good deck, it's got big weaknesses, it's quite predictable with little room for innovation, it's part of the meta, and you have to deal with it's existence, one way or another. If everyone is playing hunter, all you have to do is play reasonably and counter it and you'll rise up to the point where you're facing a bunch of interesting decks that can keep hunter down in the rankings.
That's because aggro is meant to defeat Control. They aren't meant to be equal. Aggro has a natural advantage to Control. That's not a bug: that's a feature. You're supposed to fight aggro decks with midrange/Combo decks, not try to make a square peg fit into a round hole.
Neither. The game is MEANT to cycle between them and combo. A pure aggro meta is just a race to see who put the cheapest cards in the deck. A pure control deck is a race to see who's deck is the slowest and greediest. Both will result in poor quality games.
A good card game involves players never feeling comfortable with one deck all of their lives, choosing to speed up when the meta slows down, combo blast when the meta speeds up, and slow down when the meta bursts, with others jumping around to try to out-flank the meta.
Very VERY true.
That's Freeze mage, not burn mage. Freeze mage stalls the game (freezes) until they can burst an opponent down. Note that even your statement of 'stalling and collecting' has nothing to do with Burn decks even in MTG. You don't stall and collect in a burn deck: you just go for the kill.
Stalling is a Combo/Control mindset. Note though that freeze mage isn't actually waiting for their burn spells. They are waiting for Archmage or Alexstransa. Once either card shows up, then they play that and finish the opponent off with burst. Thus it's a late game Combo deck, which explains why it dies so hard to Control Warrior.
Burn mage appeared about a month or so before Naxx. It's a rush deck with jugglers and leper gnomes and the like. The idea is to dump as many cards down as possible and go all face, then once the minions are all gone find your spells with card draw and wipe them out with a final blast.
http://www.hearthhead.com/news=243417/the-burn-shall-burn-you-a-guide-to-aggro-mage
Note that this one is slightly updated as a deathrattle deck with undertaker. Looks VERY familiar to the face hunter mentality doesn it?
For the record it doesn't work as well since the spell system is more messier to deal with, the hero power isn't as strong to the face, there's no trap spells for AOE+face damage, and no weapons.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
You and the OP have this exactly backwards. Control priest and control warrior are by far the best decks vs face hunter. If this a game of rock, paper, scissors, then: midrange loses to aggro, aggro loses to control, and control loses to midrange.
If the OP is playing a control deck and routinely losing to aggro, then he is doing it wrong. Ive had a lot of success with Priest lately, because it has such a great matchup vs. Face hunter and zoo. The problem isn't that he is playing control, its that his deck is way too greedy and isn't tuned properly for the meta, or that he's just plain playing it poorly.
Having every single answer to what I play is more a matter of luck than skill, so I'm more cool with that.
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
That's exactly my point, many people, such as yourself, prefer success over fun, why play hearthstone if all you want to do is to have a "Vee" on the accomplishment: Achieve legend?
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
Fair point, I agree with you. Still, as someone who hasn't declared himself "brainfull" and as most of the people who play hearthstone are not "brainfulls" just "brains" it kinda ruins the gaming experience for them.
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
Yes, you're right, it is what's being done here, but it is the truth. People hate facing hutards, people "hate" themselves for playing hutards, just look at comments on youtube on what people say about people who play this class. You are more virtuous if you play a strategy game for purposes of fun, challenging, and not for success and writing a "vee" in the legend achievement. Yes, you are ruining the game by doing so, that is what I believe.
"As housecarl I am sworn to your service. I will protect you and all you own, with my life." - Lydia of Whiterun
Priest isn't really played as a control deck. Most of your threats are along the midrange level and you carry about 1-2 big boys at most. The most expensive plays are just tech combos that stop threats rather than present them. You win by having a large board of fairly beefy minions that NEVER DIE thanks to your hero power and spells. That's NOT a control deck: that's a midrange deck. And you very much are anti-aggro. You also tend to fall apart to control decks when designed that way.
Control warrior is a very interesting beast and probably the best example of 'the exception' which is why he's the only natural control deck that survives no matter the meta. Though do note that even they dropped a LOT of 'control' in their deck (remember when they carried 6+ legendaries?) and put in a lot of midrange threats.
If you want to see issues with control decks in an aggro meta, check out how well Paladin and handlock handle a zoo or face hunter deck. Ramp druid as well technically though ramp is rather odd to call 'control' as is. Also play a priest AS a control deck with 3+ high mana big boys.
You say the issue is that he's playing his control deck greedily. That's sort of the point. Control decks stall the game as long as possible then start dropping big game-ending bombs you can't handle. Going 'anti-aggro' means giving that up and taking up a faster, more midrangy style. in other words, giving up being a control deck and leaning more towards the midrange type.
Would you MIND not taking the less than .01% of the gaming population's opinion of the game and casting them up as the entire population? There's entire CLASSES of players who like fast running high win decks. Read this:
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b
After that, read this more updated version Though you can wait until after this post:
http://archive.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b
But DO read the first.
You sound like a Johnny. Playing a standard deck that just goes in and does damage picked up from some nameless website sounds like someone you use to torture people with. Hunter in the meta sounds like a mistake Blizzard didn't patch up during beta. That's fine for your case.
But others don't think that way. Spikes take pride in the challenge of beating you. You choose the deck you feel you are best at. They chose theirs. You lose, thus showing they made the better choice. Even if no 'skill' in-game was demonstrated, THEY chose the correct deck and you, who had just as many choices, didn't. To Spikes, it still counts. That's fun for them. That's honor for them. To them, whining on the forums for nerfs because you can't cut it is NOT fun and they wonder why you are doing this instead of finding a deck, or a game, that fits you better.
The point though is to stop demeaning people who aren't you, or thinking of them as captives stuck in a world they hate. Not everyone is so stuck in their mindset that, instead of adapting their deck to better face their opponents, must belittle them verbally, and yes, your post IS belittling them, because they aren't playing in the way YOU deem as honorable and fun.
I'll be blunt. Get over yourself. People have fun in different ways, Spikes, Johnnys, and Timmys. And they ALL enjoy their playstyle. Yours is not the best. Yours is not the most skill intensive. Yours is not the most fun. You are not the Answer to HS and those beneath you are not the problem.
So please, find the answer within yourself and get off your high horse.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
What control deck are you playing that has a low win rate against hunters? Control players should be ecstatic whenever there is a hunter infestation. I have over 90% win rate against them with priest over the past few days.
Priest isn't a control deck.
It takes more than just having AOE and removal to be a control deck.
That's why they do well against aggro.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
My answers:
1) I didn't answer because I don't want the metagame to be 'dominated' by any one type of deck, I want a diverse metagame where all kinds of decks are represented. I think we have one.
2) I voted no because Face Hunter is just one of tier 1 decks in the metagame and probably not even the best one. Why would you nerf the 4th (or whatever it is) best deck in the format? That just makes for a less diverse metagame.
The only cancer in Hearthstone is its community.
My thoughts:
Thus:
Feel free to add me if you play on NA! iMPose#1429
I can see that your approach to this subject is rather dogmatic, and so I won't bother trying to argue against it. You believe what you believe I seriously doubt any amount of discussion will change it.
I'll just say this on the subject. I play the decks I enjoy playing. If I'm playing a control deck it's because I'm having fun with it. If I'm playing combo it's because I'm enjoying the games. Guess what's happening when I'm playing aggro? I'm having fun. I have fun playing against control, and combo, and aggro. I enjoy this game, and I could not possibly care less what people in youtube comments say about any class. If I took the opinions of every entitled whiner with a chip on their shoulder seriously then I really wouldn't be having any fun.
Try to keep in mind that just because you feel a certain way it doesn't make you right. You're entitled to feel it, but that's worth next to nothing.
Nothing doing, traveler.