Heatwave needs to go.

+
I know there have been many threads about this, but...they were usually about nerfing it, or even figuring out what to do about it and I don't think nerfing is going to suffice, or, indeed, that anything can be done about it without a major rework. Unlike stuff like CoC, Vilge or other tall punishes, it has no downsides or conditions. Ultimately, it's a "get out of jail" card that holds the game back in a way no other card does - both on developers' side and on player side. Let me elaborate.


It's very limiting on the development side, because all the new cards are designed with Heatwave in mind, which results in some crazy answer-or-lose ideas that get a lot of value regardless of control and threaten even more if left unanswered and lead to some awfully binary matches and sometimes metas (Foltest, anyone?). On players' side it severely limits the deckbuilding freedom, because of lot of fun potential ideas must remain in the meme world, as building a deck around a single card or combos- such as Artis, Aglais, Melusine or Igor/Townsfolk, or maybe Weavess: Incantation is guaranteed to end in a disappointment. You can purify a locked card, you can revive a killed one, but there's just no options to fight back against Heatwave. Your card is lost, and that's it. Not even a defender can save it (not that I want them to, defenders are also pretty toxic, but they are another topic). But why should it be the case? These cards aren't even especially oppressive anymore, considering how good and easy pointslamming is. Besides, uninteractivity is bad in general, and Korathi is pretty much the most impactful uninteractive card in the game.

Yeah, sure, I fully expect the first month without the Heatwave to be a greedy nightmare akin to early Homecoming, but in the long run, the game would be much easier to balance without it (because overperformes would become much more apparent), and players would need to be more creative about both control and attentive towards their side of the board to avoid getting Gigni'd, scorched, CoC'ed or just Geralted in general, which means a LOT more fun and depth than just expecting to get nuked fatalistically. All in all, Heatwave is a huge killfun card that severely limits the game, and I think that the very act of removing it could potentially inspire a lot of players to return to Gwent and revitilize the game in a way no amount of new crazy cards can.

P.s. obviously, we would need a bunch of new ways to remove artifacts, but factional artifact-busters are something that the game needed anyway, so...
 
Last edited:
I know there have been many threads about this, but...they were usually about nerfing it, or even figuring out what to do about it and I don't think nerfing is going to suffice, or, indeed, that anything can be done about it without a major rework. Unlike stuff like CoC, Vilge or other tall punishes, it has no downsides or conditions. Ultimately, it's a "get out of jail" card that holds the game back in a way no other card does - both on developers' side and on player side. Let me elaborate.


It's very limiting on the development side, because all the new cards are designed with Heatwave in mind, which results in some crazy answer-or-lose ideas that get a lot of value regardless of control and threaten even more if left unanswered and lead to some awfully binary matches and sometimes metas (Foltest, anyone?). On players' side it severely limits the deckbuilding freedom, because of lot of fun potential ideas must remain in the meme world, as building a deck around a single card or combos- such as Artis, Aglais, Melusine or Igor/Townsfolk, or maybe Weavess: Incantation is guaranteed to end in a disappointment. You can purify a locked card, you can revive a killed one, but there's just no options to fight back against Heatwave. Your card is lost, and that's it. Not even a defender can save it (not that I want them to, defenders are also pretty toxic, but they are another topic). But why should it be the case? These cards aren't even especially oppressive anymore, considering how good and easy pointslamming is. Besides, uninteractivity is bad in general, and Korathi is pretty much the most impactful uninteractive card in the game.

Yeah, sure, I fully expect the first month without the Heatwave to be a greedy nightmare akin to early Homecoming, but in the long run, the game would be much easier to balance without it (because overperformes would become much more apparent), and players would need to be more creative about both control and attentive towards their side of the board to avoid getting Gigni'd, scorched, CoC'ed or just Geralted in general, which means a LOT more fun and depth than just expecting to get nuked fatalistically. All in all, Heatwave is a huge killfun card that severely limits the game, and I think that the very act of removing it could potentially inspire a lot of players to return to Gwent and revitilize the game in a way no amount of new crazy cards can.

P.s. obviously, we would need a bunch of new ways to remove artifacts, but factional artifact-busters are something that the game needed anyway, so...
I agree entirely. Heatwave is a major enabler of both sloppy play and sloppy card design. It significantly decreases both game strategy and deck variety.

Unfortunately, it is a vital component of game “balance” right now. Unless either on the order of 100 cards were significantly nerfed or an entire mini expansion were devoted to replacing it, the game would be an unworkable mess.
 
because all the new cards are designed with Heatwave in mind
Source needed.

I'm certain nobody in the dev team, or entire studio, thinks "okay, so we're going to add this card that is really strong, but players can always Heatwave it so it's fine". Absolutely ridiculous, and not something they would do.


It's one card, and it can only remove one card per match.
It breaks Devotion, and it doesn't always find a good target (needs to get 10 or more value to be worth its cost).
People have been hating on it for years, yet it still exists without changes and there are always people who say the card is fine the way it is.
 
Heatwave looks like the lesser evil. :shrug:

Someone wrote: "Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling", so you can still make the case that Heatwave has to go.

If Heatwave were to be nerfed or entirely removed, a large set of cards (i.e Scenarios) would have to be modified to account for this change and better control tools would have to be provided to the players. At the same time Yen Invocation, which shares some common traits with Heatwave (ignoring shields, lock/purify interaction,...) would also need a rework. Heatwave in current Gwent, is almost as important as Scorch was in beta Gwent. Removing it, would require a huge rework, as you wrote in your post. I don't know if it is feasible.

greedy nightmare akin to early Homecoming

As far as I remember, early Homecoming was ruled by uninteractive Artifacts and heavy control (e.g. Sihil). Nothing would stick to the board, only artifacts.
I'm certain nobody in the dev team, or entire studio, thinks "okay, so we're going to add this card that is really strong, but players can always Heatwave it so it's fine". Absolutely ridiculous, and not something they would do.
All the new cards are designed with all the old cards in mind, or at least this would be the best practice. I find rather plausible that the dev teams accounts for various counters at the player's disposal. Heatwave should be at the top of their list.
 
Source needed.

I'm certain nobody in the dev team, or entire studio, thinks "okay, so we're going to add this card that is really strong, but players can always Heatwave it so it's fine". Absolutely ridiculous, and not something they would do.


It's one card, and it can only remove one card per match.
It breaks Devotion, and it doesn't always find a good target (needs to get 10 or more value to be worth its cost).
People have been hating on it for years, yet it still exists without changes and there are always people who say the card is fine the way it is.
Do you seriously need a "source" to see rather conspicuous patterns?
Come on.

The majority of new cards we get nowadays, especially the high-end ones, get at least some/more/all of their value on deploy, or at the very least have the potential to. Look at Gerni, Fulmar, Witchfinder, Whoreson, Cleaver, Gerhard etc. Look at the ridiculously strong graveyard interactions we have now. Hell, look at Gezras and Hoog. There's a very noticeable drift towards immediate/unpreventable value in the new cards' design, even in engines, that aren't supposed to be pointslamming, and there's no way it's just a coincidence/randomly chosen design philosophy and wasn't done with certain instant hard removal in mind, with Artis' rework being most blatant example. Now look at how helpless cards that don't get it (like Francesca) are.

And look how badly these new cool removal-resistant cards powercrept the game. All in all, the idea to design cards to be less removal-sensitive instead of addressing the problem with easy removal itself was bad and basically doomed to lead to more powercreep. Which is exactly what happened. And how couldn't it? Reliable value is, well, reliable. Why bother playing stuff like Damien or Steffan or Ves or basically any dangerously non-instant golds, if you can just slam down a Braathens for basically the same or more points?

Point is, if nothing is done about the KH, both game's designers and players will have to stick to this inherently flawed, limiting and honestly, boring deploy-heavy pattern forever. Because, again, there will be no point even creating or trying to play interesting and deep cards like Francesca or Rience with that yellow plague around. I am aware that the game without Korathi would be a nightmare right now. But that's exactly what needs to happen to make proper balancing of the game possible.

Still. "Removing a single card" argument is honestly both old and just as superficial as ever. If you play a deck that's not just all pointslam/instant threat overload and actually requires something to stick, the irreversible loss of certain single cards basically translates to defeat (which is why such decks are impossible to play competitively anymore), and which is hardly fair. Even when it isn't the case, oftentimes this "single card" can ruin ruin several-turns setup in a single easy motion, which is especially true in situations where you play a bunch of mediocre cards for the sake of payoff (Klogrim, SY Gord, any hansbuff etc.).

And the "it's been in the game for a while" is just borderline lazy. Yeah. And so has Peasant Militia. So what?
 
Last edited:
Do you seriously need a "source" to see rather conspicuous patterns?
I knew you didn't have one. Therefore, the specific statement that I quoted in my post is a mere assumption.


And the "it's been in the game for a while" is just borderline lazy.
If you want to try to counter an argument you should at least quote the full argument. Instead you've chosen to come across as rather hypocritical.


I'm not interested in writing a novel on the topic; I've already stated my opinion, and I've pointed out the assumption-presented-as-fact in your OP.
I also do not use the card in constructed decks, never really have.
 
I knew you didn't have one. Therefore, the specific statement that I quoted in my post is a mere assumption.
Well, a lot of things in life are assumptions. But with enough evidence - which I've given - these statements might as well be considered facts. Unless you refuse to acknowledge a very obvious pattern, that is.
If you want to try to counter an argument you should at least quote the full argument. Instead you've chosen to come across as rather hypocritical.
Wouldn't change much, because what I said still applies to everything you said in that part of the post anyway. But sure, let's do it this way.
"*thing* is fine because it's been in the game for a while without changes and because there're people saying it's fine" is a lazy argument.

Double Bal had existed without changes for quite a long and miserable time, and had a lot of ardent proponents here, despite very obviously being an extremely unhealthy element of the game. It took a long time to address, but in the end CDPR did it.
Post automatically merged:

Removing it, would require a huge rework, as you wrote in your post. I don't know if it is feasible.
It would require approximately a patch-worth amount of changes. This should be feasible. Also absolutely necessary, because otherwise the dead cards will stay dead forever and grow in number, assuming they don't get reworked. But reworking hundreds of dead cards is way more work, and honestly might be a bit challenging in the creative sense, considering that devs pretty much HAVE TO make everything at least partially deploy-based. Otherwise it ends up being a Francesca. I think that another big balance patch is a small price to pay for the creative freedom devs would get in a world without Korathi.

And of course you're right about Invo, because for the purposes of this thread, it's essentially second Korathi. I love the card dearly, but it very much isn't okay.
 
Last edited:
I know there have been many threads about this, but...t [...] You can purify a locked card, you can revive a killed one, but there's just no options to fight back against Heatwave. Your card is lost, and that's it. Not even a defender can save it (not that I want them to, defenders are also pretty toxic, but they are another topic). But why should it be the case? These cards aren't even especially oppressive anymore, considering how good and easy pointslamming is. Besides, uninteractivity is bad in general, and Korathi is pretty much the most impactful uninteractive card in the game.
What you probably mean is proactivity vs reactivity. Heatwave is often played reactively, e.g. when defeating a tall unit, which IMO is the boring and uncreative way of playing Heatwave. An example for proactivity would be: banishing the opponent's Gan Ceann in R1, so their Mammuna is less powerful in R3...
 
Honestly, are the devs really that- and please excuse my wording, but it's definitely necessary here- stupid to think that a single card can balance all the op engines around? Maybe they're doing it on purpose to keep things spicy, but if you ask me your theory about them fully relying on Heatwave to balance all the broken stuff is pretty illogical, they can't be that shortsighted. I think the devs simply want as many players as possible to discuss the game, and nothing works better than controversial cards like Heatwave, Fucusya, Yennefer's Invocation and and and....
 
What you probably mean is proactivity vs reactivity. Heatwave is often played reactively, e.g. when defeating a tall unit, which IMO is the boring and uncreative way of playing Heatwave. An example for proactivity would be: banishing the opponent's Gan Ceann in R1, so their Mammuna is less powerful in R3...
Appreciate the help, but no, I actually meant "uninteractive". As in, something that cannot be interacted with. Which Korathi very much is. Compare it for example with CoC or Gigni or Scorch - they are specials and a deploy, true, but you can still play around them within the rules of in-the-box gameplay - avoid going too tall with a high-value unit, not having 2 tall units at the same value/on the same row, run resurrections etc. These cards can't instantly remove something with 100% precision and can be protected from to a degree (thus, you can interact with them, if indirectly). Whereas the only real way to "interact" with Heatwave is to deny access to your valuable unit/artifact completely, either by running a defender or not playing the card till the end (which is fine for Gord but very lame for, say, Emhyr).
Honestly, are the devs really that- and please excuse my wording, but it's definitely necessary here- stupid to think that a single card can balance all the op engines around?
Well, they did print Mammuna at 10p and 4p resilience bronzes after all :shrug:
...jokes aside, it wouldn't be a stupid thing of them in general. HW can and often does counter the most dangerous target in the opp's deck easily, and you usually know what that card is and know to wait for it, so I would imagine CDPR could easily see it as a justification for creating busted engines ("it can get removed anyway"). Because that's what often happens in the actual gameplay. But sometimes it doesn't and that's when things get ugly. Because these cards should never have existed in the first place, and only were enabled by Korathi's presence. Yes, I am presenting it as a fact. Because too many things confirm it indirectly.
Maybe they're doing it on purpose to keep things spicy
That's definitely also true, because as we know, "swingy cards are fun" (c), but they still wouldn't be able to release these atrocities if HW wasn't around to do something about them. I fail to see how they would be able to justify creating something like Gerhardt or Griffin otherwise. So, do you really think the devs are so stupid they introduced these cards without accouting for Heatwave?
 
Appreciate the help, but no, I actually meant "uninteractive".
Actually, I would describe Heatwave as not just uninteractive, but anti-interactive. Interactivity implies having something on the board to interact with. Not only does Heatwave not put anything on the board — it removes cards, and needs no interaction to do so. Moreover, meaningful interaction requires having units on the board that actually do or threaten something rather than being inert points. But Heatwave strongly discourages cards whose value can be denied by virtually guaranteeing they are removed with no tactical challenge and no possible response.
 
Compare it for example with CoC or Gigni or Scorch - they are specials and a deploy, true, but you can still play around them within the rules of in-the-box gameplay - avoid going too tall with a high-value unit, not having 2 tall units at the same value/on the same row, run resurrections etc.
Indeed, the design of Scorch is elegant and effective. When Scorch and Villentretenmerth were meta, a viable solution of putting your unit out of Scorch-range was buffing one of your opponent units. Both players had ways of interacting with the threat of a possible Scorch.

Heatwave (almost) never bricks. You might find a great target or a bad target, but how many times did you discard Heatwave against an Immune Saesenthessis? Adding Heatwave in your deck is like putting your money in the bank.

That also relates to another thread I read in the forum about players forfeiting the game in Round 1 or in Round 3 with a lot of cards left unplayed. If your opponent has kept Scorch in his/her hands as one of the last plays, the other player might not find a suitable target for it. That is, even if you are down in points there was still a good chance of the game turning on its head. Scorch might be worth 0 points, or negative points if the opponent makes a mistake.

I wish the devs would release more cards with drawbacks...
 
I think I'm with Mr. Mod on this one. Heatwave is fine. It's one card. Removes one card per match. Is neutral, so it's an emergency tall removal option that's available to those who don't play NG, at the cost of devotion (not to mention 10p) and at risk of not finding a target. I also don't think the devs design all these cards "with heatwave in mind." The tendency towards OP deploy value is just powercreep.
 
I also don't think the devs design all these cards "with heatwave in mind." The tendency towards OP deploy value is just powercreep.
Alrightey then. It isn't unthinkable. It could possibly be true. But then here's a couple of questions for you. I don't actually expect you to write a full answer, but I think they are nice questions to ask yourself:

1) Why OP deploy value specifically, and not OP value in general?
And why do golds that need to stick for a turn or more to start getting their value, even though some of them have decently big bodies, haven't made it to the top of the meta since Shieldwall Duels (and even then, were played with Siege Support)?

1.1) More specificaly, why isn't Siege Elephant competitive, despite having a very solid "non-rebukable" body and a very solid point evaluation? What about Oro?
Most importantly, why does NR keep returning to Inspired Zeal time after time again, despite the ability only playing for laughable 6 points and average provisions? And, consequently, why is Zeal so valuable for a faction that has a lot of ways to protect a unit without it for a turn?

1.2) Finally, can any of that be explained with the abundance of cheap locks or other sources of control? Can it be explained with cheapness of poison?

2) Why does design team seem to deliberately avoid creating tall gold units/tall gold buffs, and when it doesn't, they're either immune (Erland/Kayran) or can be played as a last say (Kolgrim)?

2.1) Why does the value of the newer cards tend to be either uninteractive, or separated into instances, rather than accumulated on a single body?

3) Finally, why aren't alternatives to Korathi Heatwave more popular, despite them having better provision/points evaluation?
 
Last edited:
Alrightey then. It isn't unthinkable. It could possibly be true. But then here's a couple of questions for you. I don't actually expect you to write a full answer, but I think they are nice questions to ask yourself:

1) Why OP deploy value specifically, and not OP value in general?
And why do golds that need to stick for a turn or more to start getting their value, even though some of them have decently big bodies, haven't made it to the top of the meta since Shieldwall Duels (and even then, were played with Siege Support)?

1.1) More specificaly, why isn't Siege Elephant competitive, despite having a very solid "non-rebukable" body and a very solid point evaluation? What about Oro?
Most importantly, why does NR keep returning to Inspired Zeal time after time again, despite the ability only playing for laughable 6 points and average provisions? And, consequently, why is Zeal so valuable for a faction that has a lot of ways to protect a unit without it for a turn?

1.2) Finally, can any of that be explained with the abundance of cheap locks or other sources of control? Can it be explained with cheapness of poison?
Yes to 1.2 here, which also answers 1 and 1.1, except not so much poison lately. But basically this isn't due to Heatwave as much as it is due to abundant tall removal options factions like NG, SK, SY and now NR possess. In the scheme of things, Heatwave is just one card.
2) Why does design team seem to deliberately avoid creating tall gold units/tall gold buffs, and when it doesn't, they're either immune (Erland/Kayran) or can be played as a last say (Kolgrim)?
2.1) Why does the value of the newer cards tend to be either uninteractive, or separated into instances, rather than accumulated on a single body?
Same as above, pretty much.
3) Finally, why aren't alternatives to Korathi Heatwave more popular, despite them having better provision/points evaluation?
They are, though. AFAIC, Heatwave is mostly used to counter scenario heavy metas or by factions with no tall removal options at all, such as ST and MO. But NG is the most popular faction by far and has been ALWAYS, except for that one month of laughter and happiness lol, and they don't play heatwave at all, because they don't need to in the slightest. And lately I've noticed a lot of devotion play on ladder, even though the feeling is you have to play Xavier and Heatwave to counter all the graveyard nonsense. Hell, even as ST main I haven't played heatwave with any intent in like 3 months, due to mostly playing devotion Nature and now HB.
 
I think I'm with Mr. Mod on this one. Heatwave is fine. It's one card. Removes one card per match. Is neutral, so it's an emergency tall removal option that's available to those who don't play NG, at the cost of devotion (not to mention 10p) and at risk of not finding a target. I also don't think the devs design all these cards "with heatwave in mind." The tendency towards OP deploy value is just powercreep.
I think this argument misses the point of the original poster's argument and does not address the real issues involved with Heatwave.

Yes, it removes only one card, but it does so totally uninteractively. There is no preparation to play Heatwave (something that would allow strategic counterplay) and no significant deck restrictions (losing devotion at best rules out certain decks; it does not require spending provisions to shape the deck). There is no counter, no set up to play around heatwave (other than defender which is easily neutralized), and no opportunity for replay, deathwish, or graveyard use.

I don’t know what kind of decks might be competitive if it weren’t for that “one card” removed per match, but I know Heatwave keeps me from playing Artis — I commit so much to a deck that benefits from Artis but that functions when I am unable to draw him that it seems pointless when I can’t usually benefit when I do draw him either. I know Syanna can be really interesting and strategic when I try to protect her from easy removal. But enter Heatwave and she is never worthwhile. Syndicate has lots of ways to try to protect the newly (and appropriately) nerfed Drill; with Heatwave, there’s no benefit in this and entire SY archetypes are nullified because all spenders play hard into tall removal or are very inefficient. Bronze deathwish cards are an interesting MO archetype. But the cards have insufficient value unless killed and fail to tall removal if consumed en mass. Enter Weavess: Incantation. Except whoops! Heatwave and the whole deck falls apart. SK pirates would be a lot of fun. But it depends upon Crach for payoff to make it playable. One Heatwave —no payoff — and no viable deck. I’m sure there are literally dozens of interesting decks totally destroyed by Heatwave’s one, undeniable removal.

If you want further evidence of Heatwave’s ill effects, you need simply look at the metas over the past year. Almost no decks rely on engines or delayed value. Those that do depend upon protecting that value either through inaccessibility (Viy) or last say (Gord). The other exceptions use cheap, replicable bronzes.

Finally let’s look at a snapshot of Gwent’s horribly binary cards. Scenarios, Cahir, Foltest, Gezras, Kolgrim, Brouver, Melusine, pre-nerf Tunnel Drill, Vypper, Dagur, Dracoturtle, Eist, Alzur, Kikimore Queen, Koshchey, She Who Knows, all scenarios, Alzur, Dandelion. Do you think any of these would even be admitted into the game without a Heatwave counter?
 
Yes to 1.2 here, which also answers 1 and 1.1, except not so much poison lately.
I would like to remind you, that until recently, Imprisonment had been (rightfully) considered trash-tier, and that was in the same world where unprecedentedly greedy engines like Cat Witchers, Gezras and certain tall units like the Elephant were running rampant. Not "inferior" to Lockdown or DC, but actual trash tier, as in weaker than weaker factions. That very period was also rather poison-intense. So, uh, the right answer to 1.2 is probably "no", at least as far as locks and poisons are concerned. They were never a great/reliable answer to threats like Orders in the first place, often aren't now, and can be countered with purification and veil. Poison in particular wasn't a healthy mechanic by any means, but it wasn't uninteractive or "solve-all" either. And thus couldn't possibly be a major reason for this new approach to card design.
But basically this isn't due to Heatwave as much as it is due to abundant tall removal options factions like NG, SK, SY and now NR possess. In the scheme of things, Heatwave is just one card.
Factions have a lot of tall punish, but not much in the way of unconditional instant tall removal. They are two separate things, especially where orders and last 2 cards in hand are concerned. Morkvarg can't actually kill things. Poison needs 2 turns. Hjalmar can't kill a sufficiently protected unit. VVM needs a status. Graden needs a specific status. Morelse...well, Morelse is at least properly priced and requires coins to work. They couldn't possibly make a large amount of cards unplayable, because their reactivity is conditional and they're generally interactive as a result.

YenInvo is a major exception, but then again, for most purposes it IS Korathi, so everything I said about the latter applies to the former as well.
These two cards are different from the rest in that they share a very vicious combination of effects - unconditional removal, instant effect and, importantly, banish. Unlike the examples above, this combo can and does counter a lot of cards/decks implicitly. So even if they aren't the only reason for the powercreep and meta narrowing, they are by far the biggest contributors. Borrowing an example from a poster above, VVM or Leo can't make Dracoturtle unplayable. Uninteractive banish, on the other hand...
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom