I feel like I already addressed most of this in the post above, but just to reiterate, I think both, you and @Nerevarine228 are overestimating the Heatwave's impact while at the same time putting too much into "restrictions" and "setup" of the other - both faction and neutral - removal options. YenInvo is obvious, but the fact that you spammed great swords in R1 doesn't make your R3 Hjalmar "handicapped." VVM is still the best way to deal with defenders and important veil units - an option which I - as ST main - don't have without Heatwave. Incidentally, defenders are "easily" removed according to you, but a turn of setup is somehow at the same time insurmountable. Coins are another uninteractive resource, so anything that uses those for removal is by definition uninteractive as well. All of the Geralts - except Aard - have very forgiving conditions. Syanna and Artis don't need to be - and often aren't - removed with Heatwave and yes, I do think all those cards you called "horribly binary" WOULD be admitted into the game without Heatwave - and most likely WERE admitted without specific heatwave consideration.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?
Post automatically merged:
Well, to me, a total number of all available control options in the game - removal, locks, banish, poison, whatever, across all factions - would be a helluva more significant reason and consideration for card design than one single card, removing one single card per match. And I feel like I'm getting mixed messages here about this design business. You're talking about cards being printed with OP deploy stuff to AVOID Heatwave, while @quintivarium is talking about "horribly binary" cards being allowed in the game just so they could be COUNTERED by Heatwave. How are you guys on the same page?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.
Last two card aren't going to be engines, and for tall removal Heatwave is not the only "instant" option. Leo works, various Geralts, Mork won't kill but he will remove all of your Aglais 50 points of boost on the sole condition it is boost. And though VVM or Leo can't make Dracoturtle unplayable, a 5p lock can, if you didn't pack Gremist. And if Heatwave takes that DT out, well, they are both 10p.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: