Hearthstone

[yuris125]

...MtG and Hearthstone are primarily differentiated by complexity rather than strategic depth

This is just not true. The fact the you cannot do anything on opponent's turn reduces strategic depth hugely. This is why rush decks which always attack face cause so much unhappiness on Hearthstone forums. In Magic, if you play a haste creature, you need to get it through blockers, and opponent still can have a removal spell for it before it hits. In Hearthstone, a charge creature is guaranteed damage. Because of this, playing an aggressive red deck in Magic is a challenge, and you have to build your strategy right to be able to win. Playing a charge deck in Heathstone is a lottery - you either have enough damage, or you don't

I don't play control decks in Magic, so can't say anything about that. The general idea seems to be the same - survive the early game, draw a million cards, resolve a game-winning threat. If there's a blue Magic player amongst us, would be interesting to hear their comparison of control in Magic vs control in Hearthstone

But for me, even the number of lands in a deck creates an additional strategic layer in Magic which is missing from Hearthstone. Current mainstream Magic decks run between 18 and 26 lands. That means the number of spells can vary from 34 to 42. That is a huge difference, and you can vary the numbers depending on how expensive the cards you want to play are, how important it is to reach a certain amount of mana, and so on. In Hearthstone, you're stuck with 30 spells, whether you like it or not