Blizzard should add a "ban class" button

[Solmyr13]

Face Hunter also counters fun and deck diversity if you enjoy playing slower decks. Or if you want to play a *gasp* different variant of Hunter that isn't just FACEFACEFACEFACEFACE [win/lose].

I don't think I understand what you're saying, sorry (genuinely).

Face Hunter does counter control decks yes. Notice how it became big when Control Warrior's were everywhere.

The reason people flock to this and zoo as well is it's a fast game; you either win or lose usually in 3-5 minutes so you can move on to your next game and you don't have to dick around spending 15 minutes trading with someone to lose to a lucky brawl.

I'm not saying I like hunter and I don't play it but I also don't have a problem with. With this line of logic a Freeze Mage could simply ban Warrior and almost always have a winning matchup.

[Gimlix]

I don't think I understand what you're saying, sorry (genuinely).

Face Hunter does counter control decks yes. Notice how it became big when Control Warrior's were everywhere.

The reason people flock to this and zoo as well is it's a fast game; you either win or lose usually in 3-5 minutes so you can move on to your next game and you don't have to dick around spending 15 minutes trading with someone to lose to a lucky brawl.

I'm not saying I like hunter and I don't play it but I also don't have a problem with. With this line of logic a Freeze Mage could simply ban Warrior and almost always have a winning matchup.

That's like playing WoW and just do LFR because you think mythic takes to much time to do.
the game is suppost to be long and suppost to be challenging.

Not go face with no brain.

I know kids these days have no interesting in actually puting efford in games but jeez

[Mana Crystal]

+1 from me!

I would probably ban priests; can't stand the amount of control they can do. Or just see which meta is highest and ban that class.

[Mormolyce]

The intention of aggro decks is to go face in all but the most obvious of trading situations. Tempo mage and zoo are not aggro. At least most variants. Zoo is all about effective trading and tempo mage has about 5 different styles. None of which are aggresive all the time. The current paladin secret deck is pretty aggro, since youwant them to be trying to trade, not the other way around (No secrets on your turn besides competitive spirit). Eboladin, Face hunter, the old undertaker zoo, the old weapons warrior, the rogue aggro deck which name I forgot were all aggro decks. They are needed for the game, otherwise it just turns into control warrior and handlock taking over ladder. If a deck is typically fast at killing the opponent, it means it is almost all face.

Frankly combo decks are IMO the worst for the game. Because they are generally so porblematic to build around. Yes, aggro can be frustrating. But they are also easy to build around and it doesn't even take that much. Throwing in a senjin or some other early card againt aggro shoots your win rate up without crippling your deck.

If THAT is your definition of aggro then face Hunter is the only viable aggro deck in Hearthstone and I want there to be none. Every other fast/zoo/etc deck has to worry about the board.

Secret paladin doesn't go face every turn. Undertaker zoo was a broken deck period.

Maaaaaybe eboladin, but they don't really go face every turn and that deck is much easier to deal with and punish than face Hunter. They can get a Jesus draw and autowin but it's not that common. If face Hunter was exactly as viable as eboladin I'd call it balanced.

Rogue aggro is of course a rubbish deck.

Aggro deck is a low-curved fastpaced deck designed to rush your opponents face with a few efficient trades or weapon-trades.

Hyper-aggro is pretty much all charge minions, face damage cards, weapons in face unless taunt.

Those are very different then because a face Hunter isn't aggro at all by that definition - it never trades and most of its minions trade poorly (Wolfriders and Arcane Golems for example). But it wins anyway because herpaderpa face damage. So it's "hyper aggro" but the opposite of "aggro".

I don't think I understand what you're saying, sorry (genuinely).

Face Hunter does counter control decks yes. Notice how it became big when Control Warrior's were everywhere.

The reason people flock to this and zoo as well is it's a fast game; you either win or lose usually in 3-5 minutes so you can move on to your next game and you don't have to dick around spending 15 minutes trading with someone to lose to a lucky brawl.

I'm not saying I like hunter and I don't play it but I also don't have a problem with. With this line of logic a Freeze Mage could simply ban Warrior and almost always have a winning matchup.

But when you get to higher ranks, face hunters drop off and control warriors start to appear.

I don't have a problem with fast decks or fast games. Like I said, I mostly play decks like that. I have a problem with face Hunter in particular because its ability to close from 15+ is so ridiculous that they've been incentivised to use a completely degenerate strategy.

[Endus]

That's like playing WoW and just do LFR because you think mythic takes to much time to do.
the game is suppost to be long and suppost to be challenging.

Not go face with no brain.

I know kids these days have no interesting in actually puting efford in games but jeez

If you're losing to face hunters constantly, then the game is challenging, and you're failing to meet that challenge. And rather than learn to overcome the issue, you're complaining and demanding that it be nerfed down so that you don't have to face the challenge.

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

If banning 1 class is enough for your deck, then your deck must be REALLY good ;p

You must not play a lot of hearthstone.

[Deleted]

If you're losing to face hunters constantly, then the game is challenging, and you're failing to meet that challenge. And rather than learn to overcome the issue, you're complaining and demanding that it be nerfed down so that you don't have to face the challenge.

I don't play hearthstone seriously enough to really care about face hunters, but I do have a problem with this sort of logic in gaming. Sometimes adapting your playstyle is the answer, but sometimes a spec/deck is so problematic or over-powered that is does need to be corrected for the sake of the game.

I'm going to reach back in time a bit to Star Wars Galaxies, back before Jedi were a normal class. I remember seeing this same sort of flawed argument used then. Prior to the NGE Jedi were supposed to be rare, but at a point, they really weren't anymore. They were also deliberately overpowered. It eventually got to the point where to PvP, you either needed a Jedi, or you just didn't bother. There were one or two very specific non-jedi specs that could potentially beat a Jedi, but it meant you had to build your entire spec and equipment specifically for the "meta" of beating one class. And people made the same argument then; that there wasn't a problem with Jedi because they theoretically could be beat, people who were whining just needed to adapt to overcome the challenge.

This doesn't make a game fun, or "challenging". It just makes it limited and frustrating. Reducing it to a duality of face hunter vs. decks specifically tailored to beat face hunter isn't really an interesting metagame. Like I said, I don't play hearthstone competitively enough to say that this is truly the situation, but I haven't seen much of a wane in face hunter's popularity either, which you would generally expect if several effective counters were emerging in the meta.

[Pull My Finger]

Perhaps Blizzard should add a "ban good players" or even a "ban non-AFK players" button so you can always win.

[Splenda]

Nope. Just adapt your deck to what you see the most and wait for changing metas.

[Durandro]

While it would probably improve my blood pressure by never seeing a Hunter ever again, no. I'd rather they just did some balance tweeks to make Face Hunter less ridiculous.

[Eleccybubb]

Erm no they should not at all. Just because someone plays a deck you hate doesn't mean it deserves to be banned. I absolutely hate any face hunter or certain mage decks but not enough to ban them.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. Just adapt your deck to what you see the most and wait for changing metas.

Also this.

[Endus]

I don't play hearthstone seriously enough to really care about face hunters, but I do have a problem with this sort of logic in gaming. Sometimes adapting your playstyle is the answer, but sometimes a spec/deck is so problematic or over-powered that is does need to be corrected for the sake of the game.

I'm going to reach back in time a bit to Star Wars Galaxies, back before Jedi were a normal class. I remember seeing this same sort of flawed argument used then. Prior to the NGE Jedi were supposed to be rare, but at a point, they really weren't anymore. They were also deliberately overpowered. It eventually got to the point where to PvP, you either needed a Jedi, or you just didn't bother. There were one or two very specific non-jedi specs that could potentially beat a Jedi, but it meant you had to build your entire spec and equipment specifically for the "meta" of beating one class. And people made the same argument then; that there wasn't a problem with Jedi because they theoretically could be beat, people who were whining just needed to adapt to overcome the challenge.

This doesn't make a game fun, or "challenging". It just makes it limited and frustrating. Reducing it to a duality of face hunter vs. decks specifically tailored to beat face hunter isn't really an interesting metagame. Like I said, I don't play hearthstone competitively enough to say that this is truly the situation, but I haven't seen much of a wane in face hunter's popularity either, which you would generally expect if several effective counters were emerging in the meta.

Every meta turns into "FotM decks" and "decks specifically tailored to beat the FotM decks". Complaining that your deck can't adequately handle one of those decks isn't really a complaint, nor is the meta really "face hunters are #1" to begin with. If anything, face hunters are the deck that's emerged to attack the FotM, and the complaint is "my deck's FotM, so it shouldn't be challenged by this deck that isn't FotM". Which is nonsense; it's asking for the meta to be artificially restricted to keep your deck at the top of the pack, and prevent people building to defeat it.

[Ehrenpanzer]

What you're calling "cancer" is a deck that's more effective than yours, and that's the entire reason for you calling it "cancer"; that it's more effective than your deck, and yours is harder to play to boot. This isn't an argument against face hunters, it's an argument against your deck.

TCGs inevitably boil down to playing against other players. You have to build decks that will be able to handle the decks you're likely to face, or you're gonna have a bad time. That's how TCGs work.

Actually, as a formerly avid MTG player and dabbler in the bastardization of it that is HS, TCG games work on the "X is currently OP" system. They release new cards making older cards completely obsolete or easily able to stack a deck to trounce older cards, thus incentivizing you to buy the new cards (which makes them money) and the cycle repeats

[Endus]

Eh, while you're not entirely wrong, you're also not correct in dismissing their point. It is entirely possible - and happens often enough - for cards/strategies in TCG/CCGs to be far stronger than intended or expected.

While that's true, it isn't the case, here. If the only way to win was to play face hunter, then it would be OP. However, it's by no means an unbeatable deck. It's just that what works against that deck doesn't work well against other decks that are popular in the meta. It's rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock. Which is how it should be.

The whole thing just smacks of Paper saying "nerf Scissors, Rock is fine and needs to L2P".

[Solmyr13]

That's like playing WoW and just do LFR because you think mythic takes to much time to do.
the game is suppost to be long and suppost to be challenging.

Not go face with no brain.

I know kids these days have no interesting in actually puting efford in games but jeez

So if you're losing to something that's happening constantly... you need to learn to beat it. Sorry not trying to be insulting but I don't understand you're point. If you beat them consistently than don't worry about them; if you're losing make adjustments.

And where does it say a game is "long and challenging". Let's say you can clear mythic raids in 9 hours. That's once per week right (and that's really overkill. 9 hours is usually not as long). There's 168 hours in a week; that's 5% of your week. That's not "long and hard" (and i only mention raiding since that's what you stated with mythic vs LFR). Games now a day's aren't "long and hard". Personally when I was a kid I miss the days of 80-100 hours on FF7-10 but as an adult I enjoy the shorter games that offer more side stuff. Right now HS gives you a good balance of "I can log on and play 3 or 4 games tonight" OR "i want to rank up, time to pay 3-4 hours of games to try and climb".

[Vankrys]

if i ban hunters and most hunters ban me (control priest, win or lose, my game takes forever), i will never face hunter then. that's what i call win-win.

Even though my priest is so heavy on taunt and heal, i rarely loose against hunter unless my draws are abysmal (which happens sometimes), i don't like fighting hunters, it's always the same, they start going face, health go down, i stabilize, gain health and they surrender when they have no card left in hand and have no more burst.

[Vankrys]

Isn't that kinda how control decks are meant to play out anyway, though?

Priest are special, they don't have much in term of win conditions (like hellscream for warrior, antonidas + spell for mage, oil + blade fury for rogue). Typical control priest don't have much burst. They patiently wait and win by nullify the opponent win condition.

[Fenixdown]

Did...did the OP just compare playing Hearthstone to doing mythic raiding?

Wow. Just...wow.

Please stop playing one of those two games. Mythic raiding pales to playing Hearthstone, even on it's most "complex" (cough Patron cheese cough) decks. If anything, playing Hearthstone over ANY OTHER CARD GAME EVER MADE is the equivalent of raiding LFR.

So stop crying, OP. You're playing LFR no matter what. Someone's just beating you on the DPS meter cuz you decided to roll monk instead of a class that doesn't suck. Instead of banning feral druids from LFR, maybe reroll? Likewise, instead of trying to ban classes from ranked play, stop being bad at the game.

[haxartus]

I've been playing Midrange Hunter, which is basically stronger than face right now.
And it's not really that OP. I think the idea that it's OP comes from the fact that you basically auto-win vs specific decks that can't handle the damage output and have no healing/armor or huge taunts. But at the same time you auto-lose vs classes that can survive the early and mid game with over 20HP and have enough removal and board clears to handle Savannah Highmane and Boom.
It's just really easy to play because the games are fast, there are not many hard decisions and you can easily evaluate the situation and if it's a losing situation you can just concede. It's not like the deck has huge comeback mechanics, and losing a 5 minute game is not really a problem.