MArcomage

Out of all the decks I've played matches with my hastily-thrown together tower destruction deck is the only one with an above .500 record. I believe tower destruction decks are quite simply OP, and rebalance is an issue...

We already have a thread about that: link
Anyway I agree

I agree as well, though I do not have a deck like that, but some specific individuals exclusively play these and it gets a bit annoying, because countering is impossible if you do not go with a construction deck.

From my experiences of my games against tower- decks, i have to say, what matches to other posts in the other topic, that these type of decks just relys on the deck the opponent is playing. This comes from the fact that a tower- deck need to rely on, what can i say, a big amount of tower- cards with costs of 3 recources. Since this cost-splitting seems to be its great advantage, this can turn very fast into a disadvantage.
You need to discard a, lets say a gateway or a complementation ritual? For ambush, you need at least 8 recruits, which are used most of the time for catapult or other ones. Most times you have either to take mediator or samurai, but then, you wasted one or two slots of valuable uncommons,which makes your deck slower. (Yes, i am playing a Titan deck and you cant tell me that i is too slow to cope with a tower- deck)

When your enemy builds tower fast, you dont have any usefull recource left with which you could use a finisher, since tower destruction cards just reduce by a low amount.
You cannot also cope with rushes well (Only if you are faster), bcause you need to bricks for your tower- cards and are standing there without properly defense.
Other decks are just more flexible. beast/frenzy decks got enough bricks and gems for supporting cards (even if they use almost none recruits). They can play Troll Bridge, Cathedral or, if needed, an apocalyptic rain. With a Tower- Deck, you use all your recources at the same time and any other card which makes your deck more flexible just slows you down, which gives your opponent the chance of rushing you or overbuilding you.

On the other side, if you don't need flexibility, in cases where a deck is slow or builds much wall for defense, then this advantage is the reason why tower- decks are winning a game.

Of the eight or so current decks I have, one is a tower attack deck. They're almost all above 50% for wins (my Mage/Burning deck just slipped under), but the tower attack one does not have the best ratio, losing out to heavy direct damage.

As has already been said, it all depends on the deck you're going up against. You can be easily shut down by an opponent with any of the following: Adequate building cards blended with direct attack; Tower building as a primary focus (less expensive than yours point for point); Facility crippling and/or stock crippling; Targeted discarding (to a degree); Any deck that is balanced to draw out a longer match. It has its weaknesses like any themed deck.

My opinion through experience is that direct tower attack decks are less effective than rush decks. It may feel worse on the receiving end, however, because many of the building cards you draw won't help in the way they would if adding wall would help. Players need to look at their defensive cards from the perspective of how well off you'd be if your wall is taller than your tower. If most of your defense is dedicated to +wall, consider a few substitutions, and make sure your +tower cards don't all cost more than ten bricks so you can play them when drawn if needed.

I'll add this to the discussion. It's a strategy that definitely favors Standard rather than Long Mode. Also, if you can't win in the first 15 turns, you're probably not going to. If your opponent survives your initial assault, you're not going to have anything left and he's prepared to launch his strategy to its full effect.

It does have its weaknesses. However i think that it's not a fun kind of deck to play with or against.

People say use this or that tower + card to counter it. Well you can do so at the cost of making your deck more vulnerable to almost every other deck (2 common and 1 uncommon tower+ cards are not enough to counter it. You need to replace more cards or be really lucky).

Anyone can say anything about these decks. However in the link posted by Fithz you can see his own 13/14 experiment. Evidence over words. People who still don't believe that these decks are not as weak as they thing they are can always check replays from players with Infiltrator awards or even do their own experiment. A good -tower deck should have similarly high win/loss ratio.