Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Playstyle

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#21
Slio9

Slio9

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

For me its strange to argue over which takes more skill control or aggro. Both of the deck types take considerable amount of skill.


I may have been unclear before, but this is exactly correct.

#22
JCWamma

JCWamma

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 1,721 posts
Karma, I think you're doing those 'autopilot' decks a disservice. With decks that look to dominate board position, you have to think a lot about balance when it comes to resets. Take the final of the regional I went to recently, for instance - I was Bara Knights, threw down as much as I could first turn, got Valar'd and lost. Similarly with PBtT, if you dedicate yourself to wrecking the opponent's hand and come up a card short, they play Negotiations and you've wasted a turn, which a rush deck can't afford to do. That's not getting into cancels, aggro challenges, etc.

#23
JCWamma

JCWamma

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 1,721 posts
And mdc, I don't see how having little on the board is against the theme of the books. Valar frickin' Morghulis.

#24
asmoothcriminal

asmoothcriminal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 590 posts
I'm far from any expert, but I don't think a deck on auto pilot can be competitive. Too many characters/events/locations/agendas will change how you have to play the game. Bland/auto pilot decks may exist, but I must agree with Ire and say that they would not be competitive if they can't also adapt.

#25
Karma

Karma

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,884 posts
I'm not saying that they are competitive. I'm just saying that they are out there. Maybe its just my perspective but i don't see rush decks being all that in depth. Its probably because everything that has been mentioned is stuff that you consider in just about every deck you play in any card game. Resource management more or less. Its probably something that i over look because i don't feel like there is much thought in it. Or, maybe i'm just used to playing control that it feels like there is much more of a thought processes in it and that anything outside of that amount of thought process feels like auto-pilot decks to me.

#26
WWDrakey

WWDrakey

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 617 posts
I definitely agree with Ire. There are easy to pilot Controls, and hard to pilot Aggros, just as much as there are of the opposites. And even inside both groups, there are a lot of different styles of deck that require different kinds of skills to pilot. Dumbing the game down to something like "Aggro is easy, Control is hard" seems completely preposterous.

Honestly, if that were the case, then there would be a lot more people winning tournaments with Baratheon Long Voyage, instead of just one (John Bruno).

Like you already discussed, anything that is simplified to a very clear 'rota' is something that I would deem as being easy, since the primary skill involved is not missing specific and practiced actions. Be that deck Stark Siege, Power Behind the Throne or Martell KotHH... has nothing to do with whether it's Control or Aggro. Now, all of those decks can be built to either have a lot of flexibility and decision points, but they can also be "dumbed-down" to follow a simple pattern.

The only real argument I've ever heard for Control to require more skill is that there are more decisions to make... but that doesn't really say anything. That would only have any relevance, if there was a single, really thin, path through the whole tree, instead of several different routes to victory. If most of your decisions can still lead to alternate victory paths (or you can wipe away your mistakes, say with a Westeros Bleeds (Core)), then that's not a clear indicator of requiring more skill.

Aggro requires more anticipation (you have to expect specific control tricks, expect cancels, anticipate Valars... since you don't have cancels handy, you cannot just try stuff and rely on backing your effect up with protective cancels), while certain forms of Control require better execution of patterns (think Targ Burn, with needing to trigger effects in their correct order). And those are just a scrape on the surface, there's a huge umbrella of different playing skills involved.

If anything, I think the thing I'm most proud about AGoT is the fact that every single playstyle requires a lot of skill. Because of that, blatantly self-serving comments like "Aggro is dumb, cuz like all the cool Jaime-kids I like Control!"... irritate me to no end.
  • darkbladecb, Ire, Zeiler and 5 others like this

#27
JCWamma

JCWamma

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 1,721 posts

Honestly, if that were the case, then there would be a lot more people winning tournaments with Baratheon Long Voyage, instead of just one (John Bruno).


I agree with the rest of your post, but just to say Bara TLV also won the Huddersfield regional.
  • WWDrakey likes this

#28
WWDrakey

WWDrakey

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 617 posts

I agree with the rest of your post, but just to say Bara TLV also won the Huddersfield regional.


Hah. Fair enough. ;)

#29
Karma

Karma

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,884 posts

If anything, I think the thing I'm most proud about AGoT is the fact that every single playstyle requires a lot of skill. Because of that, blatantly self-serving comments like "Aggro is dumb, cuz like all the cool Jaime-kids I like Control!"... irritate me to no end.

Who ever said Aggro is dumb? I said its more straight forward and easier to play. Because of this most people tend to gravitate to control because of their being more things to consider and more routes to go about it. Also the fact that Control has more of a ability to come back from a bad situation. I never said Aggro was dumb. I just said it is more straight forward then control and because of this, people in this thread are gravitating to control. Now, while there may be things to consider in rush decks, they are all still leading to that one direct path that you mentioned. Control on the other hand, like you said, has multiple different paths that it can take to get to it's end point. Hints why rush is more straight forward then control. In MOST cases that is. Granted, there are your straight forward control decks but those are a lot fewer and in between then rush.

Like i said though, maybe its because of that one path way of thinking that i feel like rush is a auto-pilot deck, i dunno.

I don't really like calling rush decks aggro because control decks can be aggro as well. So, if you see me saying rush, we are talking about the same thing. XP

#30
Bomb

Bomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,023 posts
I like combining all deck types into one.

#31
Prophit618

Prophit618

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 572 posts
I like to really mix it up and throw some MtG cards in the mix, sometimes a little pokemon.
  • WWDrakey, darkbladecb, Zeiler and 3 others like this

#32
asmoothcriminal

asmoothcriminal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 590 posts
I like turtles...

#33
WWDrakey

WWDrakey

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 617 posts
~ Ah yes, the huge difference between saying "easier and requiring less skill, almost auto-pilot" vs. saying "dumb". I really missed that difference in hue, please do enlighten me as of how that is different.

I equate skill with "the ability to make a correct choice in a difficult situation". Now, what I was saying is that the difficulty of making a correct choice does not depend on there being more paths, but rather the percentage of those paths being good, and the ease of differentiating a good path from a bad one. If the problem were to find all of the good paths, then yes, a deck with less decision points would be easier to play. But that's not the case, all you need to do is identify one path to victory, and proceed with it.

You're the one claiming Control needs more skill. So, it's your job now to explain, why there are either a larger percentage of bad paths, or it is harder to identify a good path from a bad one. Number of decisions? Being able to choose from many paths to victory? That's not skill, just more chance for self-expression.
  • Ire and Flint like this

#34
Karma

Karma

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,884 posts
Drakey, you need to calm down because i'm not going to get into a big fight here. I've already clarified that it is how i feel about it when i'm switching from one theme to another theme. It feels like it is a lot less to consider then when your playing control. Primarily because the stuff you consider when your playing rush is what you consider when your playing control as well, just with more stuff added onto it. In my experience a lot of starting out players will play a more aggressive deck because it is easier to understand and grasp the concepts of the game. Primarily because there is less to consider.

As far as telling you the difference between the two. This is how i feel about it. If a deck was dumb, you could hand it to someone who had never played the game and they would be able to play it just fine. When i look at requiring less skill to play a deck, i look at being able to hand someone the deck who has played the game for a good amount of time but has never played the deck before and they would be able to play the deck at a fairly high standard. Which, generally, not all the time, but most of the time rush decks are this way.

As far as how we both perceive skill being, i believe we both look at it the same way. The only thing i disagree with is that having more paths and the ability to determine which one is a good path to go down isn't a percentage game. For example, lets say that someone has been playing a deck that doesn't have many decision points and the only thing that deck really does is attack and gain power while trying to keep their bored from being valared. Do you think if you handed them a deck that was full of decision points that they would be able to pilot it at a decent level? Probably about half of them could while the other half probably wouldn't know which card would be the best card to play at this point in time. The reason i see behind this is that every time you make a choice, that is a path. At least how i look at it is. Now, lets say that you have 5 different outs to a situation you are in but only 1 of these outs are actually going to pull you out of this situation and let you win the game. Meaning that just because you have a out to one situation, it doesn't mean that that out is going to allow you to get out of the next 3 or 4 situations that are going to happen next. Being able to look down each one of these paths and play the next few turns out in your head to determine which path is the correct one is a form of skill. Just because your used to playing a straight forward deck that only ever has 2 different options to choose from doesn't mean that your going to be able to make the correct decision when you have 5 different options to choose from. Each one of the options or paths may have slight variations in them that will make the difference of the entire game. Being able to determine which path when a situation like this occurs is when i consider a deck to require more skill to pilot then a straight forward rush deck. Not saying that rush is a dumb deck, just saying that it require less skill because you don't need to see multiple turns ahead for multiple different situations at one point in time. Some people can only see multiple turns ahead of time with only 2 options, others can keep track of the results of 4 or 5 options and be able to choose which path is the correct one. This tends to occur when you have played the game for a longer time though. Sometimes, people can't even see that there are other paths they could take that would be the best one for them to take. All of this is to me, what makes a control deck more skill oriented. In most cases that is. There are simplistic ones. But a majority of the time, the situation i described above occurs more in a control deck then in a rush deck.

#35
WWDrakey

WWDrakey

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 617 posts

*
POPULAR

Okay, the reason I was curt before, was that I didn't have the time to explain the whole point throughout. Hopefully I have the time now, so let's see it through, explain the different skill-sets and approaches, and then we can maybe identify what you are actually claiming.

First of all, I'm a bit worried about vocabulary here... we're using Aggro / Control / Rush very loosely, without founding them into actual definitions. So let's start with those:

Aggro - Board position supremacy, interrupting your opponent's play through high claim challenges (of all three types) and using (mostly) challenge-victory -based effects for targeted removal (especially on locations) to drill in the advantage. Winning challenges to drill in the advantage (on all fronts) is key. Individual cards are mostly dispensable, since the overall position is the primary target. Aggro is mainly a playstyle focusing on the mid-game.

Classic Aggro cards: The Price of War, new Victarion, any 2-claim plot, Wildling Horde, Northern Cavalry Flank.

Rush - Concentration on power-gain over both board supremacy and long-term advantage. Working with a very limited toolbox of effects for steering the direction of the game, and instead trying to use immunities/protective abilities to prevent destruction/control of key characters and grab the win through challenges. Always plays against a ticking clock, since it is the weakest decktype in mid- to late game. Except in hybrids, Rush is usually a playstyle focusing on the earliest portions of the game.

Classic Rush cards: Fat Bob, The Red Viper, To The Spears, The Power of Faith, Distinct Mastery.

Control - Using a large set of card effects to control the flow of the game and your opponents available choices. Strong individual card effects (Bleeds, Hatchling's Feast, Valar) are a hallmark of control, as are playing with a small and flexible board position, interrupting challenge math through card effects and stalling for advantage. Without other themes mixed in Control is a clear end-game deck, which instead of working against the clock, has all the time in the world... as long as it can thwart the opponent from winning quickly.

Classic control cards: Valar Morghulis, Threat from the North, Game of Cyvasse, Forever Burning, Burning on the Sands.

Combo - Uses a combination of card effects to assert an alternative victory condition on the game, trying to tutor and wield the pieces for the combo, in order to and fire it off through opposing cancel, board pressure, control, or ticking clocks against Rush decks. Combo decks vary quite a bit depending on the combo, but would mostly be classified as mid-game (since the combo usually takes a bit of time to construct).

Classic combo cards: Brass Link + Steel Link, Queen of Thorns, Riverrun, Sitting the Iron Throne.

Now, most decks in AGoT are hybrids of the playstyles, you'll rarely find a deck that is a pure example of a specific playstyle. For reference, let's list some common decktypes (their most common and well-known variants), so we know what we're really talking about:

- Martell KotHH: Control/Rush. Assert board control through challenge control and card effects (especially resets), but push for the win with a mid-to-late game Rush through To The Spears, The Red Viper, Southron Mercenaries. Can also be constructed as a pure hybrid of the three, by adding in Aggro elements (usually a decent portion of those Rush elements are still left in).
- Lannister PBJ: Aggro/Rush. Assaulting your opponent's hand through several high-claim intrigue challenges is pure Aggro, by definition. Gaining power from doing so, via Cersei and other renown character, is Rush.
- Greyjoy Choke: Control/Aggro. Choke your opponent's play-choices and clear their locations/characters with a combination of Aggro (Wintertime Marauders, Support of the Kingdom) and Control -style (Valar, Newly Made Lord) effects.
- Baratheon Knights: Rush/Aggro. Emphasis on board-position, high claim challenges and closing out the game.
- Stark Epic Siege: Rush/Aggro. Same deal.
- Stark Maesters: Control/Aggro. Strong board position, which is further fueled with (chain-powered) card effects.
- GJ Maesters: Control/Combo. Emphasis on obtaining advantage through card effects, especially combos.
- Targaryen "Rusted" Maesters: Aggro/Combo. Emphasis on huge board advantage, and fueling it through combos (Fighting Pit + Weapons, draw from Links etc.).
- Targaryen "Burn" Maesters: Control/Aggro/Combo. Again, an emphasis on maintaining board advantage, but this time it is pushed more through Control effects that are fuelled by combos.
- Greyjoy Black Sails: Aggro (or Aggro/Rush): High claim, big strength, pushing challenge wins, War-crest tech... pretty straightforward Aggro, but can also be Aggro/Rush with the inclusion of enough renown and Rise of the Kraken.
- Targaryen KotHH Burn: Control. Possibly one of the purest forms of Control (specifically, hard control) in AGoT, especially in the Bruno-style variant. Very few closers, not much high claim... but rather card effect after card effect.
- Baratheon "Mill" Maesters: Combo. The purest form of Combo, since it asserts a clear alternative win condiiton (deck your opponent to obtain victory).
- Baratheon Noble Rush: Rush. The purest incarnation of Rush, since it does not drive for board advantage, but rather concentrates all of it's efforts on pushing for the power-gain.
- Stark Winter: Aggro, probably closest to it's purest form. No power-gain, just high claim, stealth, strength and removal.

Okay, so now we've established what we're actually talking about. What that list will show you, is that there are very few decks that really epitomize a certain playstyle, instead of being a hybrid of two. So, we'd probably need to find out which decks, in particular, you find to be over-simplific. Based on earlier comments, I would assume those to be Aggro/Rush (you mentioned PBJ at least)? Now, while I can see the argument that that specific (quite narrow) playstyle can be built to function with a clear 'pattern', I would still be really hesitant to call out either Rush or Aggro as simple based on that.

NOTE: I left out the differences between soft / hard / challenge etc. control in order to somehow stay on point.

Honestly, any playstyle, if it is working perfectly, will be easy (not require playing skill) to play. If you can burn out or kneel out all of your opponent's characters, there isn't any skill involved. If your opponent never gets a single gold and only draws 1-2g characters, no playing skill is involved. If your opponent can't stop you from gaining power with Fat Bob, there isn't any skill involved. If you can just push through 2-3 claim challenges and your opponent can't withstand them, then there's no skill involved. In all of those cases the decks are doing the playing, not the players. Games like this will happen in AGoT, usually due to really bad setups or awkward/perfect draws... or because one player had not taken a specific playstyle into account in their deckbuilding. Oh and one more case, if a player had taken it as a known vulnerability for their deck, but had read the meta to not include such decks. I'm purposefully talking about playing skill here, since that's what I assumed the discussion was about (and the topic for that matter). If you wanted to talk about the finer points of deck construction, that's a completely different topic.

Now, I was talking about different skills being required for different playstyles. Let's have a better look at those (I'll expand more on the ones that Control doesn't require, since those were the ones questioned):

Knowing when to use/hold card effects: A very important skill for Control decktypes. With Aggro/Rush you usually don't have the luxury (time) of holding effects that much, while Combo is perplexed of the whole thought, since their cards are all pushing for that one single condition. Especially important in control for cancels.

Challenge Math: Very important for both Aggro and Rush, since both require actual challenges to push for the win. Not important for Combo. Not nearly as important for Control, due to having access to 'shortcuts' (control effects) during the challenges.

Expanding (on Challenge Math): You know those 'untidy and crowded boards' that Control players don't like? One reason they don't like them, is that it takes real skill (and a lot of maths) to navigate through them, especially if you're the one with a weaker (or more vulnerable) board position... and cannot 'simplify' the situation by taking out problematic characters or canceling claim from specific challenges. This is a skill I've seen many Control players lack, especially when you go to 8+ characters on each side. They tend to get a feeling of frustration, since they cannot use a 'shortcut' to simplify the equation... and instead have to think through the whole Challenge phase at the start, without really being able to react to opponent's choices mid-phase.

Plot Choices: Most important for Control and... Rush, surprisingly. Now, the control part here is clear (using plot effects to control, you will have to choose and time them to maximize their effect), but why Rush? Bad Rush players use a specific pattern. Good Rush players will adapt to the situation, bluff with cards like Power of Blood (not going for the second one on round 3, but rather dropping an Art of Seduction), know when to protect their position and when to go for closers... Conversely, Aggro plots are usually more straightforward (which 2-claim this turn?), while Combo will just try to play plots that help it get or keep it's game together.

Expection: Mostly based around card knowledge, the ability to assess what specific effects your opponent may have. Usually most important in Rush / Combo. I'll discuss this together with the next one, since they are inadvertently tied together.

Working around specific card effects: While this skill is important for most decks, it's usually critical for Combo and Rush, since you have specific very fragile pieces, by which your whole game will either succeed or fail... and no control/Aggro methods (removal, cancel etc.) of dealing with them.

Expanding (Working around...): Now, you know how it may seem to be difficult to time a control effect like Game of Cyvasse correctly sometimes? That's nothing compared to having to play against a Martell player, and having to take Game of Cyvasse into account (without knowing they have one or two, and not having any tools to negate it) with every single action that you perform during Challenges with a Rush deck. A huge amount of calculation, having to overcommit or take risks... and the best result you can ever obtain is to have it either be used on a non-optimal target, or having to redo the same dance all over again next round. It's not hard to see which side requires more skill to walk cleanly out of that one...

Reacting: Mainly a Control skill, of using the correct reaction to a situation at the correct time.

Targeting: The ability to choose the correct target for specific card effects. This is mostly connected to Aggro and Control. Flip-side of working around card effects, if you will.

Pattern execution: Combo and Control mainly, since you have very specific patterns of effects to execute. Remembering to leave influence for returning Forever Burning... and then actually returning it. That kind of thing.

Gambits: Assessing the right time to take a risk on your opponent having/not having specifc counters / cards available. More akin to an art, and reading very minor details from your opponent's board / situation... than any kind of science. This skill is mostly connected to Aggro and Rush. Combo requires a bit of this, while Control very little.

Expanding (Gambits): This is a skill that Control decks don't usually require at all, and try to avoid having to do like the Plague. Well, they do have to do it sometimes, but in only one situation - the Control vs. Control -mirror. Rush decks need to do this always, and with high stakes to boot.

Stalling / Delaying: Playing the long game, and not allowing your opponent to get too far ahead, while you're still building up. Mostly Combo / Control, but all decks have to do this in specific matchups.

Error minimization: Important in most playstyles, especially in Combo. Particularly arises in specific matchups, like fast Rush vs. slow Control, where the game can swing early on in either way on one small miscalculation.

I wonder if I got everything... probably not, but that at least should highlight some of the skills that the different playstyles require, and show how each requires a very specific portfolio of skills (to play well).

Now, let's tackle your argument about having any Control player take a Rush deck, and play it well. For this one, I have an anecdote (which is no proof at all, but I feel it's pertinent at this point).

Before Stahleck last year I handed one of my younger apprentices two decks (that I felt my own Stahleck deck needed to be tested against). He did not have a particular background in either Control or Aggro yet, and had been playing for 6 months.

This being the meta of Autumn 2012, the decks I handed to him were a Spanish-style Martell KotHH (Bleeds, Valar, huge card advantage, To The Spears and a bit of renown... Cyvasse and all the works) and a Stark Winter (pretty close to the DC-style decks). So, one Control/Rush (focusing more one the Control, and less on the Rush) and one pretty straightforward Aggro. He was able to play the Martell KotHH straight out-of-the-box pretty accurately (he does have cardgame background) even though he hadn't even seen a KotHH before. Beat me a few times. With the Stark-deck he always made clear (to my mind) miscalculations (in Challenge math and card interactions), which might not have seemed big at the time, but always lead to him losing the games.

Now, does that mean Aggro is harder to play than Control? Hell no. It means that he was naturally inclined towards the skills required for Control. The funny part of this? He was even worse with Rush than Aggro back then. He picked up Aggro later on, but still doesn't feel comfortable with playing Rush decks that don't have Control as a 'safety net'.

A lot of the skills required for a specific playstyle may not be perfectly obvious from merely playing against players of that playstyle. What you would need to do is put in a lot of hours with each of them, in order to see what the crucial points are. Rush will look stupid simple to you, if you aren't packing any tools to fight it, and it steamrolls you in two rounds. Control will seem ridiculous, when you never get to play a single character, or have it stay standing for challenges. Aggro will seem OP, with Chintarion bulldozing you for 4-claim military on Round 3. The real skills involved are most often seen only when you start playing something yourself... and especially when having to play against good and experienced players who are familiar with playing against that specific playstyle.

Honestly, the overall level of skill required in AGoT has much less to do with specific playstyle, than it does with how good players and how well-built decks you are playing against.

So, based on that analysis and vocabulary, which particular skills (required only for Control) are so much harder to master, that they can be used to claim that Control requires more skill (instead of different skills)? Something on the list I mentioned, or something that I missed out?

Damn. That's more of an essay than a Forum post. Well, let's end it in style, now that we're at it:

And who are you, the proud lord said,
that I must bow so low?
Only a cat of a different coat,
that's all the truth I know.

In a coat of gold or a coat of red,
a lion still has claws,
And mine are long and sharp, my lord,
as long and sharp as yours.
  • mishuoprescu, JCWamma, Ire and 13 others like this

#36
Karma

Karma

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,884 posts
More or less i think the misunderstanding here is are definitions of Rush decks. I've come from multiple card games and the primary one i played for close to 10 years was dominated by rush decks. These rush decks won either turn 1 or turn 2 of the game. This is what i think of when i think of rush. This is why i feel like rush is such a simplistic thing to me and it makes me feel like rush decks in general ((not limited to AGOT)) are just auto-pilot. Spam out a bunch of characters and then attack for the win. There just isn't much to think about in this style of deck when your shooting for a 2nd turn win. I think i just have a different definition of rush is all. If your winning by turn 2 or 3, then its rush. If you have any type of mid to late game built into the deck, then i'm not considering it rush at all.

Though, for sake of a argument. I don't think aggro is limited to mid game win with a bunch of 2 claim plots. I more or less look at aggro as a deck that wants to be going first because of wanting key effects to trigger before your opponent has a chance to trigger their effects. A example of this would be a Martell deck wanting to attack first because they have Lost Oasis on the board.

In terms of your question of which skills require more skill to use effectively. Pattern Execution would be one. Like you said, if you don't understand which pattern you need to use things in, then your not going to be able to play the deck effectively. Because of this, i actually feel like control decks are less forgiving then people think. Its true that you have multiple answers but if you don't know the order to use those answers in, then your not going to be able to maintain control of the game. Targeting is another one. If you don't know which card is the right card to target, it can lose you the game right there. Knowing when to use a card effect vs when not to. I'd also expand this into how many resources your willing to dedicate into getting rid of one card. If you use to many resources on one card, then you wont have enough resources to deal with another problem card down the road.

To be honest, i actually feel like there are a couple of rush skills that you listed that i personally use as a control player that i feel like are pretty key to the success of any control player. I feel like Expectations and Working around is more important as a control skill then you give it credit for. One of the biggest things i run into when i consider bleeding the board or player valar. More so valar now that i'm moving away from bleeds is if the rush player has Narrow Escape in hand. If they present a open field that screams that they have a Narrow Escape, then i'm expecting Narrow Escape. At this point it switches over to reactions. Then you consider if you have a cancel for it or if your willing to pitch your hand to the Narrow escape. To be honest, i would almost say that just about every Reaction thought process in control begins with Expectations and Working around. I'd probably put those 3 categories hand and hand with each other for control. Pretty much in this order. Expectations -> Reactions, if you do't have a immediate answer to said card, then it goes Expectations -> Work Around.


I'm half asleep right now, so i dunno if any of that really made sense. I'll read over it again tomorrow when i wake up.

#37
Paimen

Paimen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
For me I think you are now just trying to define is it harder to do figure skating or play ice hockey. Just because skates are involved does not mean you can say that figure skating does not take any skills as you can skate alone and just do the Salchows and Lutz and you do not need to care about other players. When figure skater says that hockey player do not have any skills because they do not know how to do Salchows or even pirouettes. They just put that silly black rubber thingy into goal and you do not even loose any points if you fall.

People have different natural flow of seeing cards and how to interact them and create decks that are natural to them. And to broad the skill-set beyond that natural flow takes lot of work. You might be more comfortable to play control and pick up control deck and win with it and be totally lost with competitive rush deck. I know this, because I'm the noob WWDrakey used as example in his previous post. It takes lot of work to adapt yourself and PoV to deckbuilding and strategies to get hold different playstyle. Is it harder to play control than rush? My answer is It really depends how you are build and how you see the game flow.

Also when you are noob into game you definitely look into more straightforward decks and play styles, but take noob aggro deck and compare it to competitive aggro deck and they do not have much similarities only general flavour how people are seeing it to flow. Thus you cannot say aggro takes no skill because it is easy deck to build for first deck.
  • WWDrakey and PulseGlazer like this

#38
Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 480 posts
There are people in my meta who play very casually, who don't follow the strategy and the card pool. They build the decks around the combos they want to play, and I'm here to tell you, it doesn't matter what net-decking they do, they don't do as well as they could otherwise. Even in the most ostensibly "auto-pilot" deck you still have to know what you're doing in order to succeed.
  • Danigral and Bomb like this

#39
Bomb

Bomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,023 posts

There are people in my meta who play very casually, who don't follow the strategy and the card pool. They build the decks around the combos they want to play, and I'm here to tell you, it doesn't matter what net-decking they do, they don't do as well as they could otherwise. Even in the most ostensibly "auto-pilot" deck you still have to know what you're doing in order to succeed.


+1
I think knowing your deck inside and out and knowing EXACTLY how to play it is probably the most important part of playing. I could give my best joust deck to someone casually and they will probably lose many games because they don't know the contents or the purposes of certain cards in the deck. I think this can also apply to veterans of the game that use decks they don't know that well. Sure, they know how to play the game really well, but not knowing a deck could mean poor timing on using or playing certain cards.

#40
Karma

Karma

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,884 posts

For me I think you are now just trying to define is it harder to do figure skating or play ice hockey. Just because skates are involved does not mean you can say that figure skating does not take any skills as you can skate alone and just do the Salchows and Lutz and you do not need to care about other players. When figure skater says that hockey player do not have any skills because they do not know how to do Salchows or even pirouettes. They just put that silly black rubber thingy into goal and you do not even loose any points if you fall.

People have different natural flow of seeing cards and how to interact them and create decks that are natural to them. And to broad the skill-set beyond that natural flow takes lot of work. You might be more comfortable to play control and pick up control deck and win with it and be totally lost with competitive rush deck. I know this, because I'm the noob WWDrakey used as example in his previous post. It takes lot of work to adapt yourself and PoV to deckbuilding and strategies to get hold different playstyle. Is it harder to play control than rush? My answer is It really depends how you are build and how you see the game flow.

Also when you are noob into game you definitely look into more straightforward decks and play styles, but take noob aggro deck and compare it to competitive aggro deck and they do not have much similarities only general flavour how people are seeing it to flow. Thus you cannot say aggro takes no skill because it is easy deck to build for first deck.

Aggro is different then rush. The rush that i'm speaking of that is auto-pilot and takes no real skill to play is one that is shooting to win turn 2 of the game. I'm not claiming that the deck is competitive by any means, but these are the decks that i'm talking about when saying they are auto-pilot. Their only concept is to play a bunch of characters to the board and attack with a bunch of renown dudes while dropping Superior claim and Make An Example. Its literally, turn 1 build your board, turn 2 build more and attack all out. Play your Superior Claim and Make An Example this turn and push for the win. More time then not, i see these types of decks built out of Baratheon to be honest. I've got one that i play for Melee at local tournaments and there just isn't much thinking to the deck really. First turn flip Counting Favors to load up your hand. Build your board with stuff like Double Renown Bob, Banner Barer, and Arena Knight. Do a little bit of attacking, try to get about 5 power this turn. Second turn flip a 4 or 5 gold plot. Build some more and push for the win. If you don't get the win on this turn, then you flip Retaliation and drop a Knight Of Storms so that you attack first on a 2 claim challenge. Its a very straight forward deck and doesn't take much skill if any to pilot. Much easier to pull off the turn 2 win in melee because of having multiple players actually.

I dunno, maybe its just me but in a deck like what i just described. I don't see there being much skill needed to pilot something like that. Its just a straight forward concept. Play a bunch of renown dudes and swing for the win in the first 2 turns.

EDIT: No, i do not play both Superior Claim and Make An Example in the same deck in Melee. I was referring to a joust build of the deck when saying that you play both of those cards.