Hearthpwn

Fibonacci? MonkaS

Well I guess the name of the brawl is pretty good...

#wildlivesmatter

Guldan 10000000% 

Well more the fact that Spellbreaker has less of a drawback than Ironbeak Owl (7 stats for 4 mana vs 3 stats for 3 mana)

With Hearthstone constantly receiving so many new players, there is an increasingly high number of players venting their frustration about 'cancerous' aggro/tempo decks (in my experience it's mostly newer players trying to get into the game).

I understand how oppressive they can feel but in my opinion, the popular idea that control is amazing; aggro is cancer is both annoying to most players and damaging to the community.

So, why do I and many more experienced players disagree with this idea?

1. The point that aggro decks are mindless doesn't make any sense.

First of all, aggro games last much shorter than control mirrors and because of that, each decision is more influential than most decisions in control decks. I understand that in some games as the aggro deck, you just have to sit there and hope they don't have the answer and thus frustrating the opponent when they don't draw that necessary card. However, this frustration is mostly very narrow minded; what did the aggro player have to consider when making his decision to go all in? Look back at your games and reflect on your mulligans - should I have kept that siphon soul against the paladin? etc. Also reflect to see if you have used your removal as efficiently as possible or simply if your deck has enough removal for the meta at your rank.

2. "I must stay pure and never play aggro"

That's complete bullocks. In terms of ladder, aggro is more efficient in terms of time but also more consistent due to the fact that building a board happens more often than clearing it.

3. "But control decks are more skill intensive"

Also bullocks. The control deck has one goal: don't die. He achieves this by clearing stuff. The aggro deck aims to kill his opponent as fast as possible. 

When you break down the game pretty much every game follows this formula, and though it seems that control decks are harder to play, each role has its own intricacies and challenges.

So what we've seen is that the view that aggro is pure 'cancer' that is commonly shared between newer players is unjustified and incorrect and I'm sure is irritating to a lot of players including me. 

If you'd like to read about how to actually get better at hearthstone rather than complain about half of the game, the article below is really helpful and informative and was what made me change my view about aggro decks and the game as a whole (when I first got into the game I also shared the hatred)

https://www.icy-veins.com/forums/topic/32384-legend-in-the-making-an-advanced-guide-to-competitive-hearthstone-part-1/ 

Its still 10k dust

We're currently playing with 6 different expansions and so, the cards in the new expansion only make up 1/6th of the cardpool. Because of this, we can expect a small amount of new cards being put into new decks especially while trying to make viable decks and exploring the usage of certain cards. Additionally, its important to note that the usage of some cards are still being explored like Twig of the World Tree and so aren't seeing much play (We've seen this is previous expansions, notably Prince Keleseth which went from mega meme to op.

Another important note is that the new cards open up possibilities for old cards like the new spell only hunter deck reviving some spells (On the Hunt etc) and dragon priest coming back as an archetype that has been dormant last expansion.

Why no crazed alchemist instead of faceless? It' cheaper and more versatile

You got shittalked for playing an aggor deck... by someone playing an aggressive deck...

nice

POGgers

Year of Raven Live on China !!!