I’m not actually a Vanar player, though really like the faction, but I figured out recently that I’m a mostly aggro/burn player, I like that play-style especially in Vetruvian and recently in Lyonar.
I find this conversation interesting because you brought up an archetype, aggro-Faie, which I used to find very controversial and OP, at least back when Frigid Corona would target generals, so I’d like to share some thoughts:
If this would be a question to yourself you’d have answered to it already and it’s only a partial truth, especially because starts out on an assumption on which you and a portion, not all, of players agrees on: aggro is not fun.
As much as I hate(d) when people played Conceiling/Alcuin, Frigid"ing" the general, because it’s frustrating to deal with them and leaded to a loss with high probability, I must admit that I understand the pleasure in firing at your opponents, damaging them little by little, alternating healing/provokes/stuns, the “bite and run” style that circumvents big threats. Simplifying, the feeling of “yeah sure, play all your thikk boyz, I will just double Warlock+hit face for the win” is really rewarding, and that’s why aggro is a thing in Duelyst and other CCG.
I wouldn’t dare to speak as a faction expert, but I believe a (new) player can study the game even just by the type of game they want to play. You probably want to play a more mindful, strategical, position based game, but I’m afraid you cannot expect the same attitude from the other players. Yours may be just a suggestion, an attempt to stimulate new players to explore possibilities, scenarios, combos, but I’m afraid you must surrender to the fact that there’s a play-style that just wants to hit face regardless that has nothing to do with positioning, though there’s a board, but this game (and another faction with East Asia-washed feature, and a thing for red, pandas and tigers) has ways and gives tools to ignore the board. Also, in a fast tempo game like this, is inevitable to see aggro decks thriving, especially in a time when they are one of the few good answers to the meta, which leads to the other question…
A game of competition especially without an unranked mode any more, even without necessarily prioritizing it, incorporates the idea of “winning against the others”, and this is materialized in the ladder. Playing such games, most of the time players want to have matches to win them and accomplish their goal of feeling/being stronger than their opponents.
Especially new players can easily be more attracted to that at some point, so if your point should be discussed on an ethical level I’d say: let them do, they’ll reach the point where learning the other archetypes, strategies,and even memeing will be more interesting and important for them.
I think aggro and strategy can go hand in hand, it’s not merely ignorantly shoot and empty your hand then lucky-god draw 'till victory. You can lurk/force the opponent into the centre column and play a Fissure, place stuff so that the opponent will leave a spot for Holy Immo, play Star’s Fury in a time when people think Vetruvian has better 5 mana drops, play post-nerf Saberspine, and so on, just a bunch of quick examples… I mean there are strategical ways to play aggro, surprise the opponent, trigger answers so it back fires or goes to trash: it’s just a different way of intending strategy, and still belongs to the sphere of knowledge of the game.
Though I actually tried to give an answer to your questions, I ideologically agree with you that the game should be explored and all its potential should be discovered and experimented, but I also believe that is part of the learning process, and part of how this game should be played, to play aggro decks, and aggro Faie, and all the aggros, because the game allows it with its cards and the thrill of the win, especially when quick, is exciting and rewarding for everybody.