Hearthpwn

Quote from FortyDust>>

Quote from Shango>>

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

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

Quote from Shango>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from Shango >>

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from Mini1994 >>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from Mini1994 >>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is the worst it has ever been for people that enjoy playing control decks or slower midrange decks or people that like value cards, it is a fantastic meta for people that enjoy combo decks or aggro players that dont mind playing against combo decks.

Last time i recall the meta being ths bad for control palyers was during Ungoro, before quest rogue got nerfed, but that was just one deck and it was pretty unpopular. Now depending on how you count 25% of the ladder is entirely unebatable for control players, excluding fringe cases were your opponent mills their own quest reward or keeps it in hand for you to snipe with mutanus.

Even though i do enjoy playing the occasional aggro deck i think its a horrible design decision to exclude an entire part of your palyerbase from enjoying the game you made, you can also observe this with many streamers like kibler, zetalot or theo, which either regularly end their streams early or are just vocal about how the are not enjoying the game right now.