You never jumped on your Hunter to get a few fast ranks huh? Liar!
There are some of us who really never have done it. I play a very slow Hunter, it's a slog and I have to work hard for every win I get. I have never hopped on the face train to get a few fast ranks. Some of us really haven't decided to partake in such a disgraceful deck.
The Idea that face decks are bad is so stupid I personally prefer control decks and mostly play those (that's the reason hunter is my only class that hasn't reached level 60 yet), however even I know that a card game isn't balanced if it doesn't allow for aggro and control decks to work equally well.
Good for you for playing control hunter however not everyone wants to waste their time with an obvious sub-par deck.
I have absolutely nothing against aggro. I find it a beloved part of the game, and will play it from time to time. However, I consider face hunter disgraceful because it has scarred the reputation of hunter in general. There's just so much more to the class, but all anyone sees is "hunter = face, face = SMOrc, SMOrc = cancer". I'm sick of people hating on the class all because of a gimmicky archetype that represents so little of what the class can do.
Ty for your response, this is 100% accurate and I could not agree more. But why can those Tempo Mages that have cards like 'Waker be considered aggro? After all they do little to no trading and go face 90% of the time.
I think the real issue is the term. It's why some people used to call zoo a 'control deck' because it constantly traded and fought for the board.
Aggro, the term, refers SPECIFICALLY to this: a deck that is strongest in the early game and weakest later on. It puts all its strong eggs and powers in the early stages and, thus, is vulnerable to the late game. The 'kill you by turn 5' feature is due to the fact that ANY deck.. EVERY SINGLE DECK that has Tempo will start going face.
I repeat: EVERY SINGLE DECK that has Tempo will start going face.
Aggro gains tempo right at Turn 1 and the second it loses Tempo will never get it back. Thus it MUST hit your face early and often if it has a chance to win. Even if it's designed to trade, like zoo, it MUST focus on kill you early or else it never will.
THAT is an aggro deck.
TEMPO decks are aggressive, they aim to kill you early, like an aggro deck. The main difference is that Tempo does NOT QUIT. Aggro, at turn 8, means it's going to lose. Tempo, at turn 8, just means another minion to spit at you, even stronger than turn 7. Tempo CAN and WIL Lkill you early. It does not have to. Stopping the mana wyrms early on means NOTHING to a Tempo mage except that they now have room for Dr. Booms and flamewakers. That's why it's allowed to trade more. it doesn't care about card advantage, value, or even your face. ALL it cares is Tempo. So long as it has Tempo, it will kill you whenever it once.
Tempo is aggro, without a time limit.
So why nitpick? Because playing and fighting a Tempo deck like an aggro deck will lose you the game. Aggro decks must be drained. Heal and stall, heal and stall until they run out of ammo. Tempo decks must be robbed of their Tempo. Take the board and hold it and be able to keep tempo despite stronger threats. Thus you Starve Aggro and Rob Tempo.
I think the real issue is the term. It's why some people used to call zoo a 'control deck' because it constantly traded and fought for the board.
Aggro, the term, refers SPECIFICALLY to this: a deck that is strongest in the early game and weakest later on. It puts all its strong eggs and powers in the early stages and, thus, is vulnerable to the late game. The 'kill you by turn 5' feature is due to the fact that ANY deck.. EVERY SINGLE DECK that has Tempo will start going face.
I repeat: EVERY SINGLE DECK that has Tempo will start going face.
Aggro gains tempo right at Turn 1 and the second it loses Tempo will never get it back. Thus it MUST hit your face early and often if it has a chance to win. Even if it's designed to trade, like zoo, it MUST focus on kill you early or else it never will.
THAT is an aggro deck.
TEMPO decks are aggressive, they aim to kill you early, like an aggro deck. The main difference is that Tempo does NOT QUIT. Aggro, at turn 8, means it's going to lose. Tempo, at turn 8, just means another minion to spit at you, even stronger than turn 7. Tempo CAN and WIL Lkill you early. It does not have to. Stopping the mana wyrms early on means NOTHING to a Tempo mage except that they now have room for Dr. Booms and flamewakers. That's why it's allowed to trade more. it doesn't care about card advantage, value, or even your face. ALL it cares is Tempo. So long as it has Tempo, it will kill you whenever it once.
Tempo is aggro, without a time limit.
So why nitpick? Because playing and fighting a Tempo deck like an aggro deck will lose you the game. Aggro decks must be drained. Heal and stall, heal and stall until they run out of ammo. Tempo decks must be robbed of their Tempo. Take the board and hold it and be able to keep tempo despite stronger threats. Thus you Starve Aggro and Rob Tempo.
The distinction of a "tempo deck" is meaningless.
I agree that every deck that has Tempo will go Face. Let's say someone plays a Piloted Shredder into an empty board. Opponent plays Nourish, or equivalent. That player just lost tempo to the player who has minions. What is the Shredder player going to do with it? Pass? I just fail to see what the point of that is. The only thing that point supports is the idea that there are no tempo decks in the first place. Because your premise for what makes Mage a Tempo deck and Hunter an Aggro deck isn't related to that at all.
The argument that follows is that's because, let me see, because Mage has a middle and late game that involves minions? Doesn't a deck with a middle game get classified as a Midrange deck? Maybe because it plays 2x 1-drops, it's a "Tempo" deck? Except, Midrange Hunter plays Webspinner, at minimum, and is still midrange.
Because how you defeat Aggro is by stalling and how you defeat "Tempo" is by taking the board? Except, the entire premise of the Mage build is that the opponent playing minions to gain the board is pointless. Say you play a non-Taunted Giant at 4 mana in response to Flamewaker. The Mage will either mirror image, or Frostbolt your Giant, or do some other such thing that attacking for 8 with your Giant has no effect. So, it doesn't matter if you have the board. You either play spells to clear their minions or you might as well not bother. That's how the deck works. And if there were a deck that you just win against by taking control of the board in the middle game, that deck would be midrange, such as Druid, Midrange Hunter, etc. So because you beat Mage by killing off its minions cheaply, and you said that's how you beat Aggro, I guess that makes it Aggro.
See, the only reason "Tempo Mage" got its name is because it opted for a bunch of cards that gave you a mana discount. Even before Flamewaker was released, players noticed that openings involving Mad Scientist, Apprentice, Kirin Tor Mage with Mirror Image, etc, gave you a ton of stuff that you weren't paying very much mana for. Incidentally, a good way to beat Druid and Hunter. Lots of mana discounts amount to what everyone agrees are high tempo plays. And now, the term certainly isn't going anywhere now that Freezing and Mirror Imaging to take away attacks is part of the deck's repertoire.
But because what's at issue is the appropriateness of answer cards, the distinction is entirely pointless. Here's the only one that makes sense - "Aggro". Aggro is short for aggressive. Take the set of all your wins and record the turn they happen on. If that distribution is around an earlier turn than another deck, then your deck is the more aggressive deck. It doesn't matter whether you win by minion swings, or by Fireball, or by Steady Shotting face. The earlier your deck wins, the more aggressive your deck is. That's what aggro means. Putting a deck on a pedastal because, hey, at least it's not Face Hunter, that's just inane and meaningless.
Some people think control warriors are scums, while others think that players who brew thwir own decklists are pretentious deckbuilder wannabes.
It's the internet, hate is part of it since its birth and there is no good reason for it. It's a place where some people have an uncontrollable hate for disabled white guys who like to drink hot chocolate by lifting the cup with their left hand.
So the last thing you want is to go down the rabbit hole and find out why certain people hate certain things, especially since most of the "people" on the internet don't even exist outside of it, just personas created by internet users.
LOL I was gonna do some long and outraged response at the absurdity of this thread topic, but I see countless valid points I would have stated have already been made. Quick question for the OP, are you still confused as to why Face Hunter and Tempo Mage are different or are you that ignorant to where you will continue your attempt at an argument that these two play styles are the same?
I agree that every deck that has Tempo will go Face. Let's say someone plays a Piloted Shredder into an empty board. Opponent plays Nourish, or equivalent. That player just lost tempo to the player who has minions. What is the Shredder player going to do with it? Pass? I just fail to see what the point of that is. The only thing that point supports is the idea that there are no tempo decks in the first place. Because your premise for what makes Mage a Tempo deck and Hunter an Aggro deck isn't related to that at all.
That's NOT what I mean by 'going face'. I don't mean if you have an empty board. I mean if there's no THREATS.
If I drop a shredder, and you drop a Raptor, I have no reason to care about your Raptor, so I'm going to go to your face. THAT is Tempo. If you drop a Dragon Consort, and I have 9 damage on the board, I still have no reason to trade with you. I can do more damage to you than you to me and, if I'm not close to death or in fear of an AOE then my threat is bigger than yours. So I'm going Face. THAT is Tempo.
The point when you trade is when you don't have Tempo. That comes either from a fear that you can't race your opponent, a fear of losing Tempo due to a counterplay, or your deck's design not giving you a good follow up since it's not time for you to shine. Thus you trade.
Note that this includes if I have a good way to trade. Even if I had a hungry dragon, that can kill a Consort and keep chugging, if I already have Tempo I'm going to seriously consider going Face.
And that is NOT the distinction between Tempo and Aggro. Both try to start killing yo uat turn 1. THe difference is that Aggro loses steam over time and Tempo doesn't. Aggro goes face until midgame, then tries a final burst and loses. Tempo goes for the kill until fatigue.
The argument that follows is that's because, let me see, because Mage has a middle and late game that involves minions? Doesn't a deck with a middle game get classified as a Midrange deck? Maybe because it plays 2x 1-drops, it's a "Tempo" deck? Except, Midrange Hunter plays Webspinner, at minimum, and is still midrange.
Midrange hunter doesn't try to kill you early game. Webspinner is NOT a threat. Leper Gnome isn't in the deck. You don't have to fear anything until ..midgame. Thus we tend to call it a Midrange deck.
Mage CAN and WILl kill you early game with apprentices and mana wyrms. They can and WILL kill you midgame with flamewakers and burst. They can and WILL kill you late game with Dr. Boom and Rag. They aren't aggro because they don't fall to pieces just because they had to fireball sludges and they don't mind you being at full health by turn 6. They aren't midrange because they'll kill you turn 4 if they are able.
Because how you defeat Aggro is by stalling and how you defeat "Tempo" is by taking the board? Except, the entire premise of the Mage build is that the opponent playing minions to gain the board is pointless. Say you play a non-Taunted Giant at 4 mana in response to Flamewaker. The Mage will either mirror image, or Frostbolt your Giant, or do some other such thing that attacking for 8 with your Giant has no effect. So, it doesn't matter if you have the board. You either play spells to clear their minions or you might as well not bother. That's how the deck works. And if there were a deck that you just win against by taking control of the board in the middle game, that deck would be midrange, such as Druid, Midrange Hunter, etc. So because you beat Mage by killing off its minions cheaply, and you said that's how you beat Aggro, I guess that makes it Aggro.
Putting a minion on the board is NOT 'taking the board'. Taking the board means taking their Tempo. It means YOU being the aggressor.
You play Giant. They play Mirror Image. You play hellfire and slam their face for 8. Mage now has no board and has to use turn 6 to fireball your Giant and ping your face. It's now turn 7, their board is empty and you are free to drop whatever you want and get aggressive. You have Tempo. That is when the deck dies.
Putting a minion down, even a big one, means NOTHING by itself. That's why Gruul isn't considered a good card. The question is whether I can keep doing more damage to you than you to me. Whoever can has Tempo. If I can stop all of your aggression by a frost bolt, I have the board.
See, the only reason "Tempo Mage" got its name is because it opted for a bunch of cards that gave you a mana discount. Even before Flamewaker was released, players noticed that openings involving Mad Scientist, Apprentice, Kirin Tor Mage with Mirror Image, etc, gave you a ton of stuff that you weren't paying very much mana for. Incidentally, a good way to beat Druid and Hunter. Lots of mana discounts amount to what everyone agrees are high tempo plays. And now, the term certainly isn't going anywhere now that Freezing and Mirror Imaging to take away attacks is part of the deck's repertoire.
High tempo plays.. like being able to freeze a giant, hit the face, and STILL drop more minions. That's exactly how Tempo operates.
And note that I already agreed that the deck has moved away from Tempo, mostly thanks to Flamewaker. Flamewaker itself is pretty Tempo, but the deck revolves away from Tempo more.
But because what's at issue is the appropriateness of answer cards, the distinction is entirely pointless. Here's the only one that makes sense - "Aggro". Aggro is short for aggressive. Take the set of all your wins and record the turn they happen on. If that distribution is around an earlier turn than another deck, then your deck is the more aggressive deck. It doesn't matter whether you win by minion swings, or by Fireball, or by Steady Shotting face. The earlier your deck wins, the more aggressive your deck is. That's what aggro means. Putting a deck on a pedastal because, hey, at least it's not Face Hunter, that's just inane and meaningless.
Aggro isn't us using a shortened form of Aggressive. It's a Term that came from MTG:
Similar to how 'Control' doesn't just mean 'board control' but a very specific deck style.
Yes, the deck that wins faster than another deck is more aggressive (the term that HS tends to use is 'faster') but we don't call Control Warrior Aggro because it kills faster than Healadin.
And 'on a pedestal' assumes that I'm defending Tempo as a deck that's better than Face Hunter. I'm not. I have no problems with either deck. Meanwhile, I can easily see why a person would hate both decks. Both focus HEAVILY on aggression and can kill you quickly. Both work against the Control mindset that folks who hate face hunter tend to prefer. I'm not writing to defend or hate on Tempo or Aggro.
I just dislike the term blending and acting like they are the same deck style. It's the same mentality that calls Warrior a rush deck because it kills you in 2 turns (and yes I've heard this).
If you hate decks that are hyperaggressive and can kill you early then Tempo is as bad as Aggro. Throw in MTG's definition of Midrange as well. Just don't spread misinformation about what the decks actually do in the meanwhile.
How on Earth is: turn one Wyrm, turn two Apprentice, turn three missles followed by bolts, turn four fire ball then smash face with wyrm & apprentice to finish you off in any way Tempo? You may get lucky some games if they decide to drop a Drake or Waker but chances are they will very often just hit your face until your dead.
Are you running #goldfish.dec? I noticed you didn't actually make any plays in your game...
I suspect the distinction will be completely lost on you but Facehunter is a "burn" deck. It aims to do an average of 5 damage per turn, 3-4 damage per card. It draws a card every turn so it just needs to keep throwing cards at you until you're dead and even if you can stay alive past turn 6 you're still on a tight clock. That's the game plan, nothing dishonorable about it, keeps decks honest.
The important thing about "tempo" is that you land a threat and then protect it. The goal is to do 20 damage with a single mana wyrm and then finish you off with burn spells. There's nothing "cheap" about fireballs to the face, it's called winning the game. Facehunters couldn't care less what happens next turn to wolfrider, but the key source of damage for tempomage is its minions sticking to the board for 3 or more turns. The thing in common they have is that they're both fast decks, which puts a lot of pressure on slow decks to beat them in time, but playing fast is not a crime, it's good deckbuilding - you should aim to be either two steps faster or one step slower than your opponents, so you can kill them first, or so you can go over their heads with bigger spells.
If you want face mage, check out the old icy veins mage, now that was a real face deck, land mana wyrm and mirror image, then go to town.
But because what's at issue is the appropriateness of answer cards, the distinction is entirely pointless. Here's the only one that makes sense - "Aggro". Aggro is short for aggressive. Take the set of all your wins and record the turn they happen on. If that distribution is around an earlier turn than another deck, then your deck is the more aggressive deck. It doesn't matter whether you win by minion swings, or by Fireball, or by Steady Shotting face. The earlier your deck wins, the more aggressive your deck is. That's what aggro means. Putting a deck on a pedastal because, hey, at least it's not Face Hunter, that's just inane and meaningless.
The distinction means everything. Hearthstone is muddier because it's so minion centric, but take a look at these two MTG decks and tell me they're the same...
:D quoting from the same link you gave: "Aggro (short for "aggressive") decks attempt to reduce their opponents from 20 life to 0 life as quickly as possible".Doesn't matter if it comes from magic it still means the same.
Great because I did not say anything about magic or minions being the source of anything. Aggro decks only care about killing you as fast as possible. That's why they don't carry Rag. Turn 8 is too late for aggro. It's not too late for Tempo, which CAN kill you early but won't die if it can't.
Btw, note that in MTG terms, 'Midrange' is also a deck that can kill you right away. Midrange MTG decks will go aggro or control depending on the opponent: if you are weak to aggro, it'll rush you down, but if weak to control it'll stall you out. THat makes Deathrattle Priest of old and current Mech Mage with Archmage a Midrange deck while 'midrange hunter' which pretty much never rushes you down, would NOT be midrange or aggro.
Maybe that crap works at rank 10 or wherever but at the competitive level there is a lot of trading that has to go on, even as tempo mage. The only deck that has ever been able to completely ignore the board is hunter.
And occasionally Mech Shaman, which can pull even dumber wins than Face Hunter if they coin Whirl-O-Matic and have Rockbiter or Flametounge.
Dude, mage will just shut your shit down if your running hunter; Has better Aoe, Better spell dmg thats not gimmick, can replicate right down to the 1 mana taunt spell or a sludge belcher and overall stronger card draw AND can almost always favorably trade because of hero power.
We dont even really need to touch on freeze mage, since you will never work past it as hunter. And mech? pffffft.
I could not agree more. My words may not have been correct but that is also my point, no decks should be labelled 'scummy' or else label all aggro decks 'scummy'.
You never jumped on your Hunter to get a few fast ranks huh? Liar!
There are some of us who really never have done it. I play a very slow Hunter, it's a slog and I have to work hard for every win I get. I have never hopped on the face train to get a few fast ranks. Some of us really haven't decided to partake in such a disgraceful deck.
This. I have a golden hunter portrait earned predominantly via midrange hunter (played around with beast deck and feign death decks from time to time). I've played "hybrid hunter" a bit recently, but have no desire to go full face (tempo?!) hunter. Just not enjoyable. Unless, of course, I decide to craft that troll "wallet" / legendary face hunter deck with blingtron, mukla, thalnos, tinkmaster, and leeroy just for laughs... but I still don't have Mukla or Tinkmaster...
TC I wouldn't pay too much mind to the HS community, most that post are low level players who complain about stuff they see as unfair, but they just lack skill. Now why does this unskilled majority complain about hunter more than mage? Well quite simple, hunter is much more popular. Face hunter (the most hated hunter archetype) is way more played (cause it is so much cheaper cost) than Alexstrazza freeze mage (which is infinitely more annoying to play against but comparatively rare).
If people saw Alexstrazza freeze mage as often as face hunter, there would be a ton of people who actually quit instead of just complaining about it on forums.
TC I wouldn't pay too much mind to the HS community, most that post are low level players who complain about stuff they see as unfair, but they just lack skill. Now why does this unskilled majority complain about hunter more than mage? Well quite simple, hunter is much more popular. Face hunter (the most hated hunter archetype) is way more played (cause it is so much cheaper cost) than Alexstrazza freeze mage (which is infinitely more annoying to play against but comparatively rare).
If people saw Alexstrazza freeze mage as often as face hunter, there would be a ton of people who actually quit instead of just complaining about it on forums.
A freeze mage mirror matchup is one of the most action-packed games I have ever seen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rawr I'm a dinosaur
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I admit i hate to play vs "new" tempo-face mages which rised after brm (Flamewaker)
They have very strong early game. Even if you managed to stop their early aggression, they still have good chances to win.
However, they are not the same as face-cancer huntards because they do trades. No Leper Gnomes Wolfriders etc. Not pure face, but Aggro, yep.
I have absolutely nothing against aggro. I find it a beloved part of the game, and will play it from time to time. However, I consider face hunter disgraceful because it has scarred the reputation of hunter in general. There's just so much more to the class, but all anyone sees is "hunter = face, face = SMOrc, SMOrc = cancer". I'm sick of people hating on the class all because of a gimmicky archetype that represents so little of what the class can do.
Rawr I'm a dinosaur
i dont get this guy. hes playing the most scumbag class and is crying about caner flame waker mage.
this 2 classes are both the same shit. no answer, you are dead.
deal with it.
I think the real issue is the term. It's why some people used to call zoo a 'control deck' because it constantly traded and fought for the board.
Aggro, the term, refers SPECIFICALLY to this: a deck that is strongest in the early game and weakest later on. It puts all its strong eggs and powers in the early stages and, thus, is vulnerable to the late game. The 'kill you by turn 5' feature is due to the fact that ANY deck.. EVERY SINGLE DECK that has Tempo will start going face.
I repeat: EVERY SINGLE DECK that has Tempo will start going face.
Aggro gains tempo right at Turn 1 and the second it loses Tempo will never get it back. Thus it MUST hit your face early and often if it has a chance to win. Even if it's designed to trade, like zoo, it MUST focus on kill you early or else it never will.
THAT is an aggro deck.
TEMPO decks are aggressive, they aim to kill you early, like an aggro deck. The main difference is that Tempo does NOT QUIT. Aggro, at turn 8, means it's going to lose. Tempo, at turn 8, just means another minion to spit at you, even stronger than turn 7. Tempo CAN and WIL Lkill you early. It does not have to. Stopping the mana wyrms early on means NOTHING to a Tempo mage except that they now have room for Dr. Booms and flamewakers. That's why it's allowed to trade more. it doesn't care about card advantage, value, or even your face. ALL it cares is Tempo. So long as it has Tempo, it will kill you whenever it once.
Tempo is aggro, without a time limit.
So why nitpick? Because playing and fighting a Tempo deck like an aggro deck will lose you the game. Aggro decks must be drained. Heal and stall, heal and stall until they run out of ammo. Tempo decks must be robbed of their Tempo. Take the board and hold it and be able to keep tempo despite stronger threats. Thus you Starve Aggro and Rob Tempo.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
The distinction of a "tempo deck" is meaningless.
I agree that every deck that has Tempo will go Face. Let's say someone plays a Piloted Shredder into an empty board. Opponent plays Nourish, or equivalent. That player just lost tempo to the player who has minions. What is the Shredder player going to do with it? Pass? I just fail to see what the point of that is. The only thing that point supports is the idea that there are no tempo decks in the first place. Because your premise for what makes Mage a Tempo deck and Hunter an Aggro deck isn't related to that at all.
The argument that follows is that's because, let me see, because Mage has a middle and late game that involves minions? Doesn't a deck with a middle game get classified as a Midrange deck? Maybe because it plays 2x 1-drops, it's a "Tempo" deck? Except, Midrange Hunter plays Webspinner, at minimum, and is still midrange.
Because how you defeat Aggro is by stalling and how you defeat "Tempo" is by taking the board? Except, the entire premise of the Mage build is that the opponent playing minions to gain the board is pointless. Say you play a non-Taunted Giant at 4 mana in response to Flamewaker. The Mage will either mirror image, or Frostbolt your Giant, or do some other such thing that attacking for 8 with your Giant has no effect. So, it doesn't matter if you have the board. You either play spells to clear their minions or you might as well not bother. That's how the deck works. And if there were a deck that you just win against by taking control of the board in the middle game, that deck would be midrange, such as Druid, Midrange Hunter, etc. So because you beat Mage by killing off its minions cheaply, and you said that's how you beat Aggro, I guess that makes it Aggro.
See, the only reason "Tempo Mage" got its name is because it opted for a bunch of cards that gave you a mana discount. Even before Flamewaker was released, players noticed that openings involving Mad Scientist, Apprentice, Kirin Tor Mage with Mirror Image, etc, gave you a ton of stuff that you weren't paying very much mana for. Incidentally, a good way to beat Druid and Hunter. Lots of mana discounts amount to what everyone agrees are high tempo plays. And now, the term certainly isn't going anywhere now that Freezing and Mirror Imaging to take away attacks is part of the deck's repertoire.
But because what's at issue is the appropriateness of answer cards, the distinction is entirely pointless. Here's the only one that makes sense - "Aggro". Aggro is short for aggressive. Take the set of all your wins and record the turn they happen on. If that distribution is around an earlier turn than another deck, then your deck is the more aggressive deck. It doesn't matter whether you win by minion swings, or by Fireball, or by Steady Shotting face. The earlier your deck wins, the more aggressive your deck is. That's what aggro means. Putting a deck on a pedastal because, hey, at least it's not Face Hunter, that's just inane and meaningless.
Wouldn't Machine gun mage make a fitting name?
[CENTER][URL=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm][IMG]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER]
Exactly, a lot of time good players choose an agro deck like zoo or face hunter because it's good against the meta that day. Not cause they are dumb.
Time is precious. Waste it wisely. Legend Seasons: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17
Current deck: Not playing much anymore
Highest rank: legend rank 9 Highest finish: legend rank 103 Infinite Arena Player
Some people think control warriors are scums, while others think that players who brew thwir own decklists are pretentious deckbuilder wannabes.
It's the internet, hate is part of it since its birth and there is no good reason for it. It's a place where some people have an uncontrollable hate for disabled white guys who like to drink hot chocolate by lifting the cup with their left hand.
So the last thing you want is to go down the rabbit hole and find out why certain people hate certain things, especially since most of the "people" on the internet don't even exist outside of it, just personas created by internet users.
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
LOL I was gonna do some long and outraged response at the absurdity of this thread topic, but I see countless valid points I would have stated have already been made. Quick question for the OP, are you still confused as to why Face Hunter and Tempo Mage are different or are you that ignorant to where you will continue your attempt at an argument that these two play styles are the same?
That's NOT what I mean by 'going face'. I don't mean if you have an empty board. I mean if there's no THREATS.
If I drop a shredder, and you drop a Raptor, I have no reason to care about your Raptor, so I'm going to go to your face. THAT is Tempo. If you drop a Dragon Consort, and I have 9 damage on the board, I still have no reason to trade with you. I can do more damage to you than you to me and, if I'm not close to death or in fear of an AOE then my threat is bigger than yours. So I'm going Face. THAT is Tempo.
The point when you trade is when you don't have Tempo. That comes either from a fear that you can't race your opponent, a fear of losing Tempo due to a counterplay, or your deck's design not giving you a good follow up since it's not time for you to shine. Thus you trade.
Note that this includes if I have a good way to trade. Even if I had a hungry dragon, that can kill a Consort and keep chugging, if I already have Tempo I'm going to seriously consider going Face.
And that is NOT the distinction between Tempo and Aggro. Both try to start killing yo uat turn 1. THe difference is that Aggro loses steam over time and Tempo doesn't. Aggro goes face until midgame, then tries a final burst and loses. Tempo goes for the kill until fatigue.
Midrange hunter doesn't try to kill you early game. Webspinner is NOT a threat. Leper Gnome isn't in the deck. You don't have to fear anything until ..midgame. Thus we tend to call it a Midrange deck.
Mage CAN and WILl kill you early game with apprentices and mana wyrms. They can and WILL kill you midgame with flamewakers and burst. They can and WILL kill you late game with Dr. Boom and Rag. They aren't aggro because they don't fall to pieces just because they had to fireball sludges and they don't mind you being at full health by turn 6. They aren't midrange because they'll kill you turn 4 if they are able.
Putting a minion on the board is NOT 'taking the board'. Taking the board means taking their Tempo. It means YOU being the aggressor.
You play Giant. They play Mirror Image. You play hellfire and slam their face for 8. Mage now has no board and has to use turn 6 to fireball your Giant and ping your face. It's now turn 7, their board is empty and you are free to drop whatever you want and get aggressive. You have Tempo. That is when the deck dies.
Putting a minion down, even a big one, means NOTHING by itself. That's why Gruul isn't considered a good card. The question is whether I can keep doing more damage to you than you to me. Whoever can has Tempo. If I can stop all of your aggression by a frost bolt, I have the board.
High tempo plays.. like being able to freeze a giant, hit the face, and STILL drop more minions. That's exactly how Tempo operates.
And note that I already agreed that the deck has moved away from Tempo, mostly thanks to Flamewaker. Flamewaker itself is pretty Tempo, but the deck revolves away from Tempo more.
Aggro isn't us using a shortened form of Aggressive. It's a Term that came from MTG:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_deck_types
Similar to how 'Control' doesn't just mean 'board control' but a very specific deck style.
Yes, the deck that wins faster than another deck is more aggressive (the term that HS tends to use is 'faster') but we don't call Control Warrior Aggro because it kills faster than Healadin.
And 'on a pedestal' assumes that I'm defending Tempo as a deck that's better than Face Hunter. I'm not. I have no problems with either deck. Meanwhile, I can easily see why a person would hate both decks. Both focus HEAVILY on aggression and can kill you quickly. Both work against the Control mindset that folks who hate face hunter tend to prefer. I'm not writing to defend or hate on Tempo or Aggro.
I just dislike the term blending and acting like they are the same deck style. It's the same mentality that calls Warrior a rush deck because it kills you in 2 turns (and yes I've heard this).
If you hate decks that are hyperaggressive and can kill you early then Tempo is as bad as Aggro. Throw in MTG's definition of Midrange as well. Just don't spread misinformation about what the decks actually do in the meanwhile.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Are you running #goldfish.dec? I noticed you didn't actually make any plays in your game...
I suspect the distinction will be completely lost on you but Facehunter is a "burn" deck. It aims to do an average of 5 damage per turn, 3-4 damage per card. It draws a card every turn so it just needs to keep throwing cards at you until you're dead and even if you can stay alive past turn 6 you're still on a tight clock. That's the game plan, nothing dishonorable about it, keeps decks honest.
The important thing about "tempo" is that you land a threat and then protect it. The goal is to do 20 damage with a single mana wyrm and then finish you off with burn spells. There's nothing "cheap" about fireballs to the face, it's called winning the game. Facehunters couldn't care less what happens next turn to wolfrider, but the key source of damage for tempomage is its minions sticking to the board for 3 or more turns. The thing in common they have is that they're both fast decks, which puts a lot of pressure on slow decks to beat them in time, but playing fast is not a crime, it's good deckbuilding - you should aim to be either two steps faster or one step slower than your opponents, so you can kill them first, or so you can go over their heads with bigger spells.
If you want face mage, check out the old icy veins mage, now that was a real face deck, land mana wyrm and mirror image, then go to town.
The distinction means everything. Hearthstone is muddier because it's so minion centric, but take a look at these two MTG decks and tell me they're the same...
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=1240621
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=1240080
Great because I did not say anything about magic or minions being the source of anything. Aggro decks only care about killing you as fast as possible. That's why they don't carry Rag. Turn 8 is too late for aggro. It's not too late for Tempo, which CAN kill you early but won't die if it can't.
Btw, note that in MTG terms, 'Midrange' is also a deck that can kill you right away. Midrange MTG decks will go aggro or control depending on the opponent: if you are weak to aggro, it'll rush you down, but if weak to control it'll stall you out. THat makes Deathrattle Priest of old and current Mech Mage with Archmage a Midrange deck while 'midrange hunter' which pretty much never rushes you down, would NOT be midrange or aggro.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
And occasionally Mech Shaman, which can pull even dumber wins than Face Hunter if they coin Whirl-O-Matic and have Rockbiter or Flametounge.
Current Deck -http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/240420-army-paladin - Token Paladin
Dude, mage will just shut your shit down if your running hunter; Has better Aoe, Better spell dmg thats not gimmick, can replicate right down to the 1 mana taunt spell or a sludge belcher and overall stronger card draw AND can almost always favorably trade because of hero power.
We dont even really need to touch on freeze mage, since you will never work past it as hunter. And mech? pffffft.
Yeah, if your a hunter look out for mage.
I could not agree more. My words may not have been correct but that is also my point, no decks should be labelled 'scummy' or else label all aggro decks 'scummy'.
I could not agree more.
This. I have a golden hunter portrait earned predominantly via midrange hunter (played around with beast deck and feign death decks from time to time). I've played "hybrid hunter" a bit recently, but have no desire to go full face (tempo?!) hunter. Just not enjoyable. Unless, of course, I decide to craft that troll "wallet" / legendary face hunter deck with blingtron, mukla, thalnos, tinkmaster, and leeroy just for laughs... but I still don't have Mukla or Tinkmaster...
TC I wouldn't pay too much mind to the HS community, most that post are low level players who complain about stuff they see as unfair, but they just lack skill. Now why does this unskilled majority complain about hunter more than mage? Well quite simple, hunter is much more popular. Face hunter (the most hated hunter archetype) is way more played (cause it is so much cheaper cost) than Alexstrazza freeze mage (which is infinitely more annoying to play against but comparatively rare).
If people saw Alexstrazza freeze mage as often as face hunter, there would be a ton of people who actually quit instead of just complaining about it on forums.
A freeze mage mirror matchup is one of the most action-packed games I have ever seen.
Rawr I'm a dinosaur