Heatwave needs to go.

[sfruzz]

If you face a deck not having a valuable target (e.g. many swarm decks) the value of heatwave is heavy limited.

It might still be valuable to kill swarm engines, such as Lieutenant Von Herst, Jacques, Grand Inquisitor Helveed, Keldar,... before they generate multiple tokens.

It is convenient to banish a swarm enabler such as the Plague Maiden. You trade a 10 provision card for a 10 provision card, plus you damage your opponent strategy (no swarm for Chimera, Bone talisman, Glustyworp, etc...).

If you play against a swarmy Lippy deck with Cerys, banishing the card will give you 4 points in this round and negate 8 points carryover in the next rounds.

Banishing Gezras of Leyda or Brouver Hoog, once the opponent has swarmed the board with elves / dwarves is also great.

I also think that many swarm decks are not purely swarm, but have some sort of tall finisher (Glustyworp) or tall bronze support (Fallen Knight).

Really, it's hard for me to think to a situation in which I blamed Heatwave for a loss, because it didn't find enough value (even in an unfavourable matchup).

 

[Barracuda88]

We were comparing slowburners to burst cards, though. And Fran can easily do more points that even the worst offender ever, Mammuna. Or, rather, she could, if she ever survived. Which was the original point. She's only a meme because she doesn't, not because the effect is bad.

No, she's a meme, because aside from slowburning, she is also ridiculously dependent on timing, and mulligans, and targets. There's nothing "easy" about her getting Mammuna points. Sure, she can remove Mammuna and offspring with double heatwave PLUS put 7 points on the board, but aside from keeping her alive you have to jump through about a million hoops and have targets. And if she dubs Oneiro, well, then she's a 7-point slow tutor. I've kept her alive in various decks, including against KH, which hit other targets, and she needs a lot of things to happen to actually "win games," which is the definition of meme.

As good as this new Devotion stuff is, it still isn't on quite the same ridiculous level as pre-nerf Relicts.
So allow me to politely disagree here.

And pre-nerf relic CHEWED through absolutely everything, and couldn't care less about KH. Only when they got nerfed they went away. So what does that prove?

Aight, no one, not even the biggest and fuchsiest Syanna connoisseur would consider slamjamming her at 3 power and no defender, it wasn't the case even before Bear Witchers and Circles of Life, and I wasn't even suggesting it, so you're shoving a huge strawman in my face here (or maybe just misreading, I'm not sure).

Fair enough, misread. It was protected, unironically, not un-protected. But she still doesn't require a KH, and if IF it ever became some crazy Syanna meta, 5 out of 6 times that KH would be used on her defender instead of her.

...
Now, about "countering that one card"...I still think, that if KH/YI weren't around, devs would be much more careful with what they release/allow to exist in the game. Would even maybe need to actually hotfix stuff, because in absence of the universal solution, imbalance would become a much more pressing matter. It's a win-win.

Uh, I mean it would be a win-win if it were true, but I don't think it is, so...

Okay, first of all, a lot of NG players aren't especially creative and all that aware of the game mechanics. I don't like it, but it's true. It's weird, considering how it's a faction of DIY decks that never play out the same way. So it's not like a thousand NG players are necessarily a good indicator of anything.
Even still...
Their answers would be something along the lines of "because of all the control". And, realistically, hardest kinds of control, because who even runs "weak" control anymore? But even something as hard and instant as Skjordal or Anseis wouldn't be able to keep Elder Bears out of meta on their own. Because at the very least, there's Joachim, and considering just how good NG thinning is, playing Elder Bears with him isn't a super ridiculous/inconsistent idea. There might be other ways, too. But none of that matters, because again, the second people start playing them unironically, meta will swing back towards HK...or, possibly, all-NG ladder, because of Invo. Could go either (or both) ways.

And when they were all the rage, guess what I personally used my KH on about 99 percent of the time? Yep, the defender.

Right. So let's not lose focus anymore.
Here's the most important question of this thread that you haven't really answered yet: what cards that aren't KH/Invo can make 14-on-deploy, no-status Damien completely non-viable while still being a reasonable part of a reasonable well-rounded deck? (not accepting "he's bad" for an answer again, he's not, not counting the whole "not surviving" thing)

What's non-viable here? I can make him non-viable with a Dragoon. Ciaran. I can make him dead with all the other tall punish we repeatedly discussed. You seem to be looking for an answer to this rhetorical question or something here: What card can make Damien disappear forever in the turn he needs to do his thing?? Yes, we all know how KH/YI works. Even if Damien was not only 14 points, shielded, veiled, was an ACTUAL ARTIFACT, with 20 vitality and getting boosted every time a new NG player was born, KH could still get him, etc etc. (But it couldn't get Milva )

The actual question here is (and maybe it's also rhetorical), if I can control him with a Dragoon, does it matter that KH will smoke him as much as you seem to think it does, both to the devs designing the cards AND to the active game state? And if I used KH on Damien, will Skellen be immortal?? That's the question that's still not being answered.

 

[Fargothwave]

And if she dubs Oneiro, well, then she's a 7-point slow tutor. I've kept her alive in various decks, including against KH, which hit other targets, and she needs a lot of things to happen to actually "win games," which is the definition of meme.

A 7-point slow tutor that allows you to play/resurrect two cards in a single turn, which can be extremely powerful and has limitless potential. Granted...Damien or Igor aren't SC cards, but I'm sure SC still have some potential power duo that could benefit from it anyway. Timing doesn't matter as much if you use her for tutoring specifically, and keeping her alive is only as hard as it is because of a few very specific cards. Regular damage and designated tall punish like Leo can be played around just fine. The only truly inherently awkward part about her is having to hold to a specific card for a couple of extra turns.

And pre-nerf relic CHEWED through absolutely everything, and couldn't care less about KH. Only when they got nerfed they went away. So what does that prove?

That's totally not true, though. I've played enough Relict games, on both sides, to know how much losing just one stupid griffin to banish can ruin you both immediately and in terms of carryover, and I'm not even talking about Gerni or Idarran here. Sabbath was only easy to achieve with Mammuna, but could be surprisingly challenging if your opponent answered either self-eaters or even an aforementioned griffin. By the end of the season I wasn't even afraid of Relicts anymore, because I knew how to handle them. So...no. Even the ridiculously overpowered archetype still did care about KH a lot.

Fair enough, misread. It was protected, unironically, not un-protected. But she still doesn't require a KH, and if IF it ever became some crazy Syanna meta, 5 out of 6 times that KH would be used on her defender instead of her.

Touche.

But (1) - you still probably need KH to get both of them reliably, and without it the situation wouldn't be so one-sided and clear-cut. A battle of tech, far more interactive and fun.

But (2)- why is it okay to just remove a unit that's designed to be tanky just like that, without brining a specific tech? After all, defenders make deckbuilding awkward, while KH is very versatile and basically always pays off (except maybe not against Arachas...). Shouldn't getting past them involve a proportionally awkward deckbuilding decision? Like at least a potentially brickable Pellar.

What's non-viable here? I can make him non-viable with a Dragoon.

Not a reasonable card to add outside of movement. But if we aren't being reasonable, hold my Strays of Spalla.

Ciaran.

Yes. But still is only available to SC and allows me to keep my 6-14 points (and maybe, if we're still being unreasonable, move them back and purify). Ciaran is fine, and so is losing your order to him occasionally.

I can make him dead with all the other tall punish we repeatedly discussed.

Yes we did. And yet you still haven't named a tall punish that can't be played around apart from KH/YI. Could you make my 8-point Damien dead with Leo? Can you always guarantee a 1-turn kill with VVM? Or Skjordal? Or Brehen? Or...long story short, no, there wouldn't be viability-ruining guarantees of any sort. Especially not if we add Ffion to the equation (and we probably should). You can still make him dead. You can't make him dead easily and all the time. Killing him would require actual effort, which is all I want from the situation.

The actual question here is (and maybe it's also rhetorical), if I can control him with a Dragoon, does it matter that KH will smoke him as much as you seem to think it does, both to the devs designing the cards AND to the active game state? And if I used KH on Damien, will Skellen be immortal?? That's the question that's still not being answered.

Yes it does. Because, again, Dragoon is faction-exclusive and isn't a good addition to a deck in general. If you have one and didn't mulligan him, well, you deserved it. But it's an exception squared, not a rule. So yes, KH still very much matters.
If you used it on Damien, it wouldn't make Steffan immortal, sure. But it would make him protectable. Which, again, is all I want from the situation. Fairplay and interactivity.

 

[Barracuda88]

A 7-point slow tutor that allows you to play/resurrect two cards in a single turn, which can be extremely powerful and has limitless potential. Granted...Damien or Igor aren't SC cards, but I'm sure SC still have some potential power duo that could benefit from it anyway. Timing doesn't matter as much if you use her for tutoring specifically, and keeping her alive is only as hard as it is because of a few very specific cards. Regular damage and designated tall punish like Leo can be played around just fine. The only truly inherently awkward part about her is having to hold to a specific card for a couple of extra turns.

We're getting a bit hyperbolic with the limitless potential and the only awkward part being having to hold a card, but that's fine. Fran is not the point of this thread, so I'm fine moving on from her.

That's totally not true, though. I've played enough Relict games, on both sides, to know how much losing just one stupid griffin to banish can ruin you both immediately and in terms of carryover, and I'm not even talking about Gerni or Idarran here. Sabbath was only easy to achieve with Mammuna, but could be surprisingly challenging if your opponent answered either self-eaters or even an aforementioned griffin. By the end of the season I wasn't even afraid of Relicts anymore, because I knew how to handle them. So...no. Even the ridiculously overpowered archetype still did care about KH a lot.

No, its not totally not true. When a deck has an upwards of 70-75% win rate it DOES chew through everything for all intents and purposes, and could care less about you using your 10p "nuke" card on its 5p Griffin. The fact that you were able to counter relicts towards the end of the season doesn't prove or mean KH affected that season's meta at all. I bet those 25% relicts didn't win were to a split between SY and ST devotion netdecks, not some KH-brandishing homebrews.

Touche.

But (1) - you still probably need KH to get both of them reliably, and without it the situation wouldn't be so one-sided and clear-cut. A battle of tech, far more interactive and fun.

But (2)- why is it okay to just remove a unit that's designed to be tanky just like that, without brining a specific tech? After all, defenders make deckbuilding awkward, while KH is very versatile and basically always pays off (except maybe not against Arachas...). Shouldn't getting past them involve a proportionally awkward deckbuilding decision? Like at least a potentially brickable Pellar.

(2)Because that's exactly that tanky unit's purpose. It IS tanking your KH, and trades 9 for 10p while doing that.

Not a reasonable card to add outside of movement. But if we aren't being reasonable, hold my Strays of Spalla.

I've always used dragoons in non-movement elf decks and in Madoc-Saber decks and in any other control decks. There's nothing unreasonable about a dragoon. It's a cheap and effective way to control a row-locked unit.

Yes. But still is only available to SC and allows me to keep my 6-14 points (and maybe, if we're still being unreasonable, move them back and purify). Ciaran is fine, and so is losing your order to him occasionally.

Yes, some control cards are limited to their factions. What's the issue here? Are we only allowed to use neutral cards for the purposes of this discussion, because KH is neutral?

Yes we did. And yet you still haven't named a tall punish that can't be played around apart from KH/YI. Could you make my 8-point Damien dead with Leo? Can you always guarantee a 1-turn kill with VVM? Or Skjordal? Or Brehen? Or...long story short, no, there wouldn't be viability-ruining guarantees of any sort. Especially not if we add Ffion to the equation (and we probably should). You can still make him dead. You can't make him dead easily and all the time. Killing him would require actual effort, which is all I want from the situation.

I can make your 8-point Damien dead with a rockslide, or CoC, or whatever. And yes, if you don't have a purify or a move card handy, then I can absolutely "play around" your mighty KH with a defender, and if you do have one of those or both, well, guess what, you just made a multi-step effort to get to that Damien, so why should someone's effort to protect him mean more than your effort to make him dead, even if you use a KH in the end?

 

[Fargothwave]

No, its not totally not true. When a deck has an upwards of 70-75% win rate it DOES chew through everything for all intents and purposes, and could care less about you using your 10p "nuke" card on its 5p Griffin. The fact that you were able to counter relicts towards the end of the season doesn't prove or mean KH affected that season's meta at all. I bet those 25% relicts didn't win were to a split between SY and ST devotion netdecks, not some KH-brandishing homebrews.

70-75%? Source needed. Actually, scratch that, don't even need a source to say that's ridiculous. Calling BS here and now. Definitely nowhere near that number, not with everyone and their dog brandishing Tunnel Drills left and right. Also, for that matter, the argument was that KH was a really powerful cards against Relicts, not that it necessarily shaped meta. Which it was, especially in Precision Strike, and you would know that, had you actually played Relicts for a while. Heck, scroll up a bit, a guy in this very thread mentions frying Gan Ceanns with Heatwave being a power move as an aside remark to a completely unrelated point.

trivia: TLG rated relicts as 4.5 and LP as 4.375 that patch, just barely below. 'nuff said.

(2)Because that's exactly that tanky unit's purpose. It IS tanking your KH, and trades 9 for 10p while doing that.

Again, you ignore the main point here. Defenders have a steep deckbuilding cost on top of their provisions, what with having awful points equation and being easily counterable with no removal whatsoever. 7 for 9 is awful, and should you run into a pellar, that's all a defender will be - a 7 for 9. Whereas KH has BOTH higher floor and higher ceiling.

I've always used dragoons in non-movement elf decks and in Madoc-Saber decks and in any other control decks. There's nothing unreasonable about a dragoon. It's a cheap and effective way to control a row-locked unit.

What row-locked unit? A Freakshow that gets most of its value on deploy anyway?

And how is running Dragoon in any other control deck but Madoc reasonable? For that matter, how do you justify running him in no-trap elves, if there's a bunch of much better 4p Elves?

Yes, some control cards are limited to their factions. What's the issue here? Are we only allowed to use neutral cards for the purposes of this discussion, because KH is neutral?

No, we aren't. But there's a world of difference between a unfavorable, specific, hardly meta matchup where you still can play around their counter, and a card that can go in every non-devo deck and can't be played around.
Anyway, Informants, Diviners, Coup de Grace, Terranova, Lydia->Caress, and heck, just a random copied DB Sorceress laugh at your Dragoons and Ciaran. Maybe not as loudly at Ciaran, but he's still manageable.

And before anyone brings up Nature's Gift - they would have hard time even getting past Ffion, Ciaran or no Ciaran. Possible, but requires a very specific boardstate.

I can make your 8-point Damien dead with a rockslide

Not a reasonable card to run outside of some VERY specific decks, and even then, probably in Scoiatael exclusively, which...just read the previous 2 paragraphs again. Wouldn't be even without KH around. Because Devotion is finally good, but not necessarily as good at combating immediate threats. Hell, wouldn't be reasonable even in non-devo, because 8 is too specific a value. Trial of the Grasses, plausible. Rockslide? Never. Not until Dorohedoro Lumier, Francesca and Witchwinder become super oppressive somehow.

, or CoC, or whatever.

CoC? Assuming that 8-str body is the highest unit on the board is a hell of a reach, even if you added "sometimes" to what you said. And you still haven't named any reasonable "or whatevers". Every example you list is either very specific or conditional or counterable. Sure, you can, sometimes. But "sometimes" isn't the same as "pushing out of meta with 100% probability".

And yes, if you don't have a purify or a move card handy, then I can absolutely "play around" your mighty KH with a defender,

No, you realistically can't. If you could, slowburners would be a lot more popular than they are, and mind you, meta isn't exactly full of movement and purifies right now, so can't be them. At the very least, we would observe way more greedy Gerhardts; and Leticia would be way higher in the food chain than a questionable t3 deck. Would maybe appear in t2 mages deck that already runs Dominir but still lists Voymir, of all things, instead of her.

Good luck playing around the current amount and cheapness of control in the game. Especially against Flurry lists, or Imprisonment lists (replace KH with Invo in this case), or Double Cross lists, or Hyperthin...

and if you do have one of those or both, well, guess what, you just made a multi-step effort to get to that Damien, so why should someone's effort to protect him mean more than your effort to make him dead, even if you use a KH in the end?

Well, that's what I said in the first place. If you have the right tech, you deserve it. But that's not what's happening now, outside of some good Diviner plays.

What actually happens, is that KH kills the defender (which was brought up by you, btw)...and then they still have a way to nuke the intended target with Vilge or something. And then also maybe kill Skellen. Which means there's one too many nukes in the equation, and that "one" is definitely the KH itself, because everything else actually requires at least some semblance of effort, and thus is far healhier, which I don't mind - after all, we need emergency removal. It just should come either with effort or a steep price, and KH involves neither (and has an added advantage of being an artifact buster).

Forget purifies and movement, I would even be fine with losing my stuff to VVM+Vilge. That, at least, is extremely expensive, requires the opp to use them against the right targets, and gives me some consolation points and possibly a valuable unit.

Or two duels. That, at least, involves quite a bit more commitment and in Joachim scenario, some prior preparation. Or a Scoundrel + Menge. You managed to establish your board despite control? You deserve to deny mine.
All of these combos have some saving grace, as to not make the matchup completely one-sided. Unlike Invo/KH, which is really all the reasons one needs to call them toxic

 

[Barracuda88]

70-75%? Source needed. Actually, scratch that, don't even need a source to say that's ridiculous. Calling BS here and now. Definitely nowhere near that number, not with everyone and their dog brandishing Tunnel Drills left and right. Also, for that matter, the argument was that KH was a really powerful cards against Relicts, not that it necessarily shaped meta. Which it was, especially in Precision Strike, and you would know that, had you actually played Relicts for a while. Heck, scroll up a bit, a guy in this very thread mentions frying Gan Ceanns with Heatwave being a power move as an aside remark to a completely unrelated point.

Well, we don't have the data, but we do know that it "averaged down" to ~60% AFTER the hotfix (read - NERF), so to estimate 70-75% in that first week isn't even as much of a hyperbole as to say Fran has "limitless potential." And as for the "argument" that KH was just "really powerful against Relicts," this entire thread - YOUR entire argument here - is about how KH defines not just "a meta," but entire Gwent, down to card design process. Are we moving goal posts here? And as for the guy powermoving on old Gan Ceanns, good for him, but Mammuna laughs and eats a Griffin instead, and if he "fries" himself a griffin, well, then She'll have a Ceann with the side of self-eater.

trivia: TLG rated relicts as 4.5 and LP as 4.375 that patch, just barely below. 'nuff said.

Deck scores don't equal winrates. And that season Relicts were a level above everyone else in overall wins.

Again, you ignore the main point here. Defenders have a steep deckbuilding cost on top of their provisions, what with having awful points equation and being easily counterable with no removal whatsoever. 7 for 9 is awful, and should you run into a pellar, that's all a defender will be - a 7 for 9. Whereas KH has BOTH higher floor and higher ceiling.

Awful points per provision, but it's a TANKY unit. It's not there to produce you points. It's not an engine or a swing card. It's only purpose is to tank damage and absorb punishment, such as KH. The cost of 9p is fine, when trading vs 10p KH. And if you packed and drew a pellar, again you are prepared, just like your opponent was prepared with a defender. GG to you. And if you didn't, GG to him. Say hello to that KH.

What row-locked unit? A Freakshow that gets most of its value on deploy anyway?

And how is running Dragoon in any other control deck but Madoc reasonable? For that matter, how do you justify running him in no-trap elves, if there's a bunch of much better 4p Elves?

Come on, what are we talking about here? Is this really on topic? Ships, hunters, Corvo, Damien, Skellen, Bincy, Smugglers, Imke, Doadrick, swordmasters, Pavko, Leticia, various NR mages, on and on, not to mention things like svalblod priests away from targets and a million other things. And yes, I include a dragoon in non trap elves for the same reason, just like I include sappers. It works for me. "Much better 4p elves" is a bit of a laugh, too.

No, we aren't. But there's a world of difference between a unfavorable, specific, hardly meta matchup where you still can play around their counter, and a card that can go in every non-devo deck and can't be played around.

We're just repeating ourselves now. From here on down. You say it can't be played around, and all the rockslides are "unreasonable" and so on, and I say, yes it can be played around behind a defender, and if they managed to get rid of your defender and still kept that KH for the actual target, well, then they played around your play around. Congrats to them. It's one card. You lose one card to KH. And if they spent KH on that defender instead of a pellar, and then STILL had a nuke to take out your prize, how is that KH's fault? How is removing KH from the game going to fix that? By giving those who don't have any tall removal already, like MO and ST, one less available removal card? Because all those cheap removal factions like NG, NR, SY and SK, they won't care or be affected by this.

 

[Fargothwave]

YOUR entire argument here - is about how KH defines not just "a meta," but entire Gwent, down to card design process. Are we moving goal posts here? And as for the guy powermoving on old Gan Ceanns, good for him, but Mammuna laughs and eats a Griffin instead, and if he "fries" himself a griffin, well, then She'll have a Ceann with the side of self-eater.

Yes, it is my overaching point. But that particular exchange was entirely about the interaction between Relicts and KH, no more, no less. So switching back to attacking the overaching idea, using pretty much random numbers as the proof that KH couldn't possibly have mattered, instead of addressing the actual argument was dodging on your part. You said that HK didn't matter against Relicts. I said it did. Context very much didn't matter there. You're moving the goalposts for me here.

By the way, they weren't even reasonable random numbers - because you're trying to mix the initial messy week with post hot-fix Relicts, which is kinda disingenuous. You never specified you were talking about the first week, and I had no reason to assume you were.

Now, with the banter out of the way. You seem to misunderstand something very important about that deck. Its consistency was terrible, and you weren't always guaranteed ONE target for Mammuna, much less two. It had lot of other hand issues and certain sequencing issues on top of that, and occasional Sabbath malfunctioning. So yes, losing that Griffin often mattered A LOT. And the fact that people started teching GY hate even back then only confirms it.

Deck scores don't equal winrates. And that season Relicts were a level above everyone else in overall wins.

And I say, SY. My word against yours. Let's see what the season report says, if we ever get one.

Awful points per provision, but it's a TANKY unit. It's not there to produce you points. It's not an engine or a swing card. It's only purpose is to tank damage and absorb punishment, such as KH. The cost of 9p is fine, when trading vs 10p KH. And if you packed and drew a pellar, again you are prepared, just like your opponent was prepared with a defender. GG to you. And if you didn't, GG to him. Say hello to that KH.

Reread the bit about indirect deckbuilding costs, please. 9p can be more expensive than 10p, and definitely are in this case.

Come on, what are we talking about here? Is this really on topic? Ships, hunters, Corvo, Damien, Skellen, Bincy, Smugglers, Imke, Doadrick, swordmasters, Pavko, Leticia, various NR mages, on and on, not to mention things like svalblod priests away from targets and a million other things. And yes, I include a dragoon in non trap elves for the same reason, just like I include sappers. It works for me. "Much better 4p elves" is a bit of a laugh, too.

So, in short, the cards that either very few people play, or the ones you gain very little from moving. Gotcha. We seem to have very different understandings of the word "competitive", it seems.

And if they spent KH on that defender instead of a pellar, and then STILL had a nuke to take out your prize, how is that KH's fault?

Simple - it would do it too efficiently and reliably. If it was any other card, there would be complications. Or higher cost. Or higher indirect cost, such as needing a leader charge to function. Or failing a condition. Many things could go wrong, which is only fair. Only it's never a case with KH. Which is its fault and my problem with it.

How is removing KH from the game going to fix that? By giving those who don't have any tall removal already, like MO and ST, one less available removal card? Because all those cheap removal factions like NG, NR, SY and SK, they won't care or be affected by this.

By forcing people to use less guaranteed options, thus giving presently hard-to-use cards a decent, maybe actually competitive chance.

But sure, some of factional options, like Duels, are almost as reliable, but when that's the case, they always are considerably more expensive/limited in one way or another, so the opponent gets a better chance to recover from a blow, because running this type of removal reduces overall power of the user's deck.

And among the factions you've mentioned only NG and maybe SY wouldn't care...but only until we take Invo and Whoreson from them. At which point they, too, will start experiencing difficulties with controlling something often enough.

Upd: by the way, SK and NR control options are largely fine. A couple of minor nerfs wouldn't hurt, but they are already manageable.

 

[Barracuda88]

Yes, it is my overaching point. But that particular exchange was entirely about the interaction between Relicts and KH, no more, no less. So switching back to attacking the overaching idea, using pretty much random numbers as the proof that KH couldn't possibly have mattered, instead of addressing the actual argument was dodging on your part. You said that HK didn't matter against Relicts. I said it did. Context very much didn't matter there. You're moving the goalposts for me here.

Haha, this entire 50-comment thread - including my point about how KH didn't matter to Relic meta - was about that overarching argument, but I'm moving the goal posts now by staying within the context? Dodging, am I? OK...

By the way, they weren't even reasonable random numbers - because you're trying to mix the initial messy week with post hot-fix Relicts, which is kinda disingenuous. You never specified you were talking about the first week, and I had no reason to assume you were.

I said "before the nerf". They released that relict nonsense and they freaking mowed down everything in their path. Almighty KH and all. Before the hotfix - aka "nerf". I estimated the rate to be 70-75%. What is disingenuous?? You had no reason to assume? What did you have reason to assume?

Now, with the banter out of the way. You seem to misunderstand something very important about that deck. Its consistency was terrible, and you weren't always guaranteed ONE target for Mammuna, much less two. It had lot of other hand issues and certain sequencing issues on top of that, and occasional Sabbath malfunctioning. So yes, losing that Griffin often mattered A LOT. And the fact that people started teching GY hate even back then only confirms it.

I don't claim to understand much. But I can sort of almost understand numbers, and deck lists, and when I lose.

And I say, SY. My word against yours. Let's see what the season report says, if we ever get one.

Elder Blood report had Relicts at 58+ winrate, while SY and ST were both around 51%. Unofficially... We'll wait for the CDPR report.

Reread the bit about indirect deckbuilding costs, please. 9p can be more expensive than 10p, and definitely are in this case.

I don't think rereading is going to help me with that.

So, in short, the cards that either very few people play, or the ones you gain very little from moving. Gotcha. We seem to have very different understandings of the word "competitive", it seems.

I guess so.

Simple - it would do it too efficiently and reliably. If it was any other card, there would be complications. Or higher cost. Or higher indirect cost, such as needing a leader charge to function. Or failing a condition. Many things could go wrong, which is only fair. Only it's never a case with KH. Which is its fault and my problem with it.

What would do what too efficiently? Failing what condition? Did you read the paragraph you're responding to? KH takes the defender. Now you have the other card going ham on the actual target. Your super-protected, buffed up target you made all that effort to protect with something OTHER than that horribly inefficient defender that just got nuked. Your prize gets taken out by that infamous "whatever" you are never satisfied with. This isn't even hypothetical. This happens the MAJORITY of the time. KH takes out the "useless," "weak" defender. Opening the way for something else to take out the clown card. How is this KH's fault?

By forcing people to use less guaranteed options, thus giving presently hard-to-use cards a decent, maybe actually competitive chance.

But sure, some of factional options, like Duels, are almost as reliable, but when that's the case, they always are considerably more expensive/limited in one way or another, so the opponent gets a better chance to recover from a blow, because running this type of removal reduces overall power of the user's deck.

Anseis is 10p and it put 4-5 points on the board. VVM or Hjalmar are 10p and they put 3 points on the board. Heatwave is 10p and it puts nothing on the board. Limited, yes, in a way, but what is more expensive?

And among the factions you've mentioned only NG and maybe SY wouldn't care...but only until we take Invo and Whoreson from them. At which point they, too, will start experiencing difficulties with controlling something often enough.

Upd: by the way, SK and NR control options are largely fine. A couple of minor nerfs wouldn't hurt, but they are already manageable.

I would remove Invo and leave KH alone to start with. Unlike YI, it's neutral and available to everyone, which I think is a good thing.

 

[Fargothwave]

Haha, this entire 50-comment thread - including my point about how KH didn't matter to Relic meta - was about that overarching argument, but I'm moving the goal posts now by staying within the context? Dodging, am I? OK...

It is still a logical fallacy, though.

KH might've been good or bad against Relicts, but Relicts weren't the only thing in meta, and not necessarily the most important thing in meta, despite their strength. Strength and importance correlate, but aren't strictly the same thing. Obviously, Relicts were strong. But it was the Drill that really defined the limits of what was viable and what wasn't, because Relicts are a solitaire deck, and can't, for example, push your engine deck out of meta. They can maybe make Yrden more popular, or something along these lines, but can't limit what you play as drastically.

Now, pay attention:
KH was still very important in the grand scheme of things, moreso than Drill, as per my overaching point. But it being good/bad against Relicts specifically had little to do with its overall global impact, because Relicts themselves didn't really have much bearing on what was viable. Global relevance and relevance in particular matchup shouldn't be mixed together, because one matchup isn't the whole meta, much less the game in general. Something can be good in a particular matchup, and stil stay largely irrelevant and vice versa.
1st case example: Yrden (good against relicts, but largely in general). 2nd example: Junod (mediocre against relicts, but very relevant in general).

In case you got confused, the key takeaway is that something being strong in the meta doesn't necessarily define that very meta is general, unless it's extremely strong against virtually everything, like the Tunnel Drill.
Therefore: something being good against that strong thing doesn't necessarily define meta either (at least because of it alone).

I owned a lot of Relict players with goddamn Regis Spyladder. And Yrden. And movement shenanigans. And regular all-in Assimilate. And I have seen a lot of streamers clowning on them with equally ridiculous strategies repeatedly.
Unfortunately, none of these decks held out against Lined Pockets. Very few decks could take on them. No, not even Relicts most of the time.

Therefore, the statement "Heatwave is good/bad" against Relicts doesn't automatically imply "Heatwave influenced meta". And just to be clear, it did anyway, but through its overall influence, rather than its relations with a single deck. But these are two separate things that can't be mixed liberally without proving that Relicts=Viability Definer first. And, again, just to be clear, they weren't, by the virtue of being a solitaire deck and regardless of their strength.

Besides, the very line you took - "Relicts had a high winrate, therefore Heatwave couldn't have possibly been good against them" is flawed in the first place. Good doesn't always translate to game-winning. What if KH was a major reason Relicts didn't hit 99%? Do you have the numbers to prove it wasn't the case?

I said "before the nerf". They released that relict nonsense and they freaking mowed down everything in their path. Almighty KH and all. Before the hotfix - aka "nerf". I estimated the rate to be 70-75%. What is disingenuous?? You had no reason to assume? What did you have reason to assume?

Look at your own words closely.

No, its not totally not true. When a deck has an upwards of 70-75% win rate it DOES chew through everything for all intents and purposes, and could care less about you using your 10p "nuke" card on its 5p Griffin. The fact that you were able to counter relicts towards the end of the season doesn't prove or mean KH affected that season's meta at all. I bet those 25% relicts didn't win were to a split between SY and ST devotion netdecks, not some KH-brandishing homebrews.

The argument never was about the first week, and I have no idea why this even came up in the conversation. To what, prove Relicts were absolutely insane during the first few days? Well, yeah, they were. Nobody denied that. Not me, anyway.
What does it prove about KH during the season as a whole...or anything else? Nothing. Why did you suddenly decide to focus on these few days or use them as a reference point for the whole season?

And why did you use the 25% WR (that could only ever be true during the first week, and even then it's questionable) as an argument in the same thought where you generally talk about the season AS A WHOLE? That's a vicarious mistake, or poorly formulated thought, or disingenuous sophistics. Tell me which.

Again - we weren't arguing about KH being good during that particular week. We were discussing the season. And it was reasonable for me to assume we were talking about the season as a whole, wasn't it? Because what would be even the point of comparing a completely broken first-week MO to anything else?

What would do what too efficiently?

KH. Would remove a defender too easily and efficiently.

Failing what condition?

A condition of removal that healthy cards have.

Did you read the paragraph you're responding to? KH takes the defender. Now you have the other card going ham on the actual target. Your super-protected, buffed up target you made all that effort to protect with something OTHER than that horribly inefficient defender that just got nuked. Your prize gets taken out by that infamous "whatever" you are never satisfied with. This isn't even hypothetical. This happens the MAJORITY of the time. KH takes out the "useless," "weak" defender. Opening the way for something else to take out the clown card. How is this KH's fault?

Again - it's KH's fault because it makes the trade absolutely one-sided. Unlike that second "whatever", who realistically is Skjordal/Vilgefortz/Anseis/Seltkirk/Brehen/Graden.

And any of these involve either higher expenses or lack of guarantees to kill the clown card. If KH involved either, I would be fine with it. Its fault is that it doesn't.

Anseis is 10p and it put 4-5 points on the board. VVM or Hjalmar are 10p and they put 3 points on the board. Heatwave is 10p and it puts nothing on the board. Limited, yes, in a way, but what is more expensive?

Anseis is 10p + a leader charge (which is a lot more expensive than just 10p, and 5p don't quite compensate it). VVM requires you to run a deck that can reliably apply statuses, which is a part of his indirect cost. Torturesses and Turncoats aren't exactly amazing outside of spying/status utility she provides, you know. And he's almost entirely unusable in stuff like Soldiers, so...yeah, kinda limited.

I would remove Invo and leave KH alone to start with. Unlike YI, it's neutral and available to everyone, which I think is a good thing.

Well, I mean, that's a mutually assured nuclear annihilation doctrine all over again. I mean, good to know the aggressor bites the dust too, but the world would be a better place without such hopeless destructive weapons. But unlike with nuclear annihilation, Gwent players are happy to toss nukes at each other.

My points is simple -

Gwent would be a better game if setting up combos and elaborate plays involved effort proportional to that of stopping them. But as of now, overabundance of control makes any attempts at big elaborate plays utterly hopeless, and instead of fixing that, devs release cards that are basically an insant "elaborate combo" all on their own, which is a completely wrong way to approach the issue. And when they try to make something else, something interesting, it ends up either being a Fran or a Melusine, neither of which is especially healthy.

If anything, it makes it less likely for older cards to ever become relevant again, and kinda means they all would need to be reworked instead, which definitely is less feasible than just reining several control and newer pointslam/engine cards in. There're a few dozens of them, but there're hundreds of cards they make obsolete. It should be clear, which should be easier to fix.

And Heatwave really IS the biggest bully enforcing the current state of things around, so while removing it wouldn't solve ALL the problems - I never claimed it would - it would be a huge step in the right direction. Yes, there still will be oppressive control around, but like I repeatedly said - none of those cards are as cheap/easy, so the situation will be at least a little bit better, which is a start.

 

[Barracuda88]

It is still a logical fallacy, though.

No, it isn't. See below.

KH might've been good or bad against Relicts, but Relicts weren't the only thing in meta, and not necessarily the most important thing in meta, despite their strength. Strength and importance correlate, but aren't strictly the same thing. Obviously, Relicts were strong. But it was the Drill that really defined the limits of what was viable and what wasn't, because Relicts are a solitaire deck, and can't, for example, push your engine deck out of meta. They can maybe make Yrden more popular, or something along these lines, but can't limit what you play as drastically.

[Now, pay attention]:
KH was still very important in the grand scheme of things, moreso than Drill, as per my overaching point. But it being good/bad against Relicts specifically had little to do with its overall global impact, because Relicts themselves didn't really have much bearing on what was viable. Global relevance and relevance in particular matchup shouldn't be mixed together, because one matchup isn't the whole meta, much less the game in general. Something can be good in a particular matchup, and stil stay largely irrelevant and vice versa.
1st case example: Yrden (good against relicts, but largely in general). 2nd example: Junod (mediocre against relicts, but very relevant in general).

[In case you got confused], the key takeaway is that something being strong in the meta doesn't necessarily define that very meta is general, unless it's extremely strong against virtually everything, like the Tunnel Drill.
Therefore: something being good against that strong thing doesn't necessarily define meta either (at least because of it alone).

I owned a lot of Relict players with goddamn Regis Spyladder. And Yrden. And movement shenanigans. And regular all-in Assimilate. And I have seen a lot of streamers clowning on them with equally ridiculous strategies repeatedly.
Unfortunately, none of these decks held out against Lined Pockets. Very few decks could take on them. No, not even Relicts most of the time.

Therefore, the statement "Heatwave is good/bad" against Relicts doesn't automatically imply "Heatwave influenced meta". And just to be clear, it did anyway, but through its overall influence, rather than its relations with a single deck. But these are two separate things that can't be mixed liberally without proving that Relicts=Viability Definer first. And, again, just to be clear, they weren't, by the virtue of being a solitaire deck and regardless of their strength.

Besides, the very line you took - "Relicts had a high winrate, therefore Heatwave couldn't have possibly been good against them" is flawed in the first place. Good doesn't always translate to game-winning. What if KH was a major reason Relicts didn't hit 99%? Do you have the numbers to prove it wasn't the case?

Don't know what the deal is with the patronizing tone now [in brackets], but it seems out of place, considering you're the one who can't seem to keep in mind the overarching point of the thread and keep sticking to, like, dragoons not being useful in decks and whatnot.

[Now, pay attention], [in case you got confused], the point about the monsters meta - including that first week - was brought up within the context of the thread about Heatwave being the key card around which design revolves and which is supposed to keep the meta in check or something. The relicts were an example to illustrate how that is not true, and referencing that first broken week was perfectly in line with the same point: if KH was this keystone of Gwent design, around which everything revolved, then there would not be insane broken nonsense happening that was happening that first week.

You just spent 5 paragraphs rebutting the poor relicts, and the a whole lot of space chasing down the dragoons, and going after various other things, including my credibility, but relicts and dragoons are not important. I could site Lined Pockets meta to make the same point. Everything I said in this thread is an attempt - since you weren't satisfied with the original argument - to use different examples to illustrate this same original point: Devotion being top of the meta, relicts, dragoons, whatever. All of these were brought up within the same context of the thread, namely, to say that KH just DOESN'T MATTER as much as you think it does. It DOESN'T MATTER THAT MUCH in design, and it DOESN'T MATTER THAT MUCH in various metas. That doesn't mean I don't know how the card works, what decks it goes into and what it costs. Yes, it is the best single-card removal tool in the game, but IT DOESN'T MATTER. That's the point. Not that relicts weren't better than lined pockets and could be owned with regis or whatever.

...

My points is simple -

Gwent would be a better game if setting up combos and elaborate plays involved effort proportional to that of stopping them. But as of now, overabundance of control makes any attempts at big elaborate plays utterly hopeless, and instead of fixing that, devs release cards that are basically an insant "elaborate combo" all on their own, which is a completely wrong way to approach the issue. And when they try to make something else, something interesting, it ends up either being a Fran or a Melusine, neither of which is especially healthy.

If anything, it makes it less likely for older cards to ever become relevant again, and kinda means they all would need to be reworked instead, which definitely is less feasible than just reining several control and newer pointslam/engine cards in. There're a few dozens of them, but there're hundreds of cards they make obsolete. It should be clear, which should be easier to fix.

And Heatwave really IS the biggest bully enforcing the current state of things around, so while removing it wouldn't solve ALL the problems - I never claimed it would - it would be a huge step in the right direction. Yes, there still will be oppressive control around, but like I repeatedly said - none of those cards are as cheap/easy, so the situation will be at least a little bit better, which is a start.

See, I agree with a lot of this. There's an overabundance of control, and there's an overabundance of ridiculous instant cards, and ridiculous meme cards and cheese cards and what not. But no, KH is not the culprit, not the biggest bully, and removing it will not fix anything, or make anything better.

 

[Fargothwave]

[Now, pay attention], [in case you got confused], the point about the monsters meta - including that first week - was brought up within the context of the thread about Heatwave being the key card around which design revolves and which is supposed to keep the meta in check or something. The relicts were an example to illustrate how that is not true, and referencing that first broken week was perfectly in line with the same point: if KH was this keystone of Gwent design, around which everything revolved, then there would not be insane broken nonsense happening that was happening that first week.

KH failing to rein the first week relicts doesn't necessarily prove what you think it proves, though. It only proves that
a) devs messed up big time;
b) considered the control tools existing in the game sufficient to counter the relicts. (I still refuse to believe they released all these cards without considering how adequately they can be countered, because that would be ridiculous of them). I mean...it's also ridiculous they didn't think about the Caranthir interaction, but not comparing new abilities against the existing control is a whole lot more absurd.


Besides: Heatwave failing to counter the first-week Relicts entirely, doesn't mean it didn't help at all, or that it wasn't intended to keep them in check. Therefore, it doesn't disprove KH's status as a keystone. Kinda confirms it, really.

Because:KH being "this keystone of Gwent" doesn't rule out the possibility of broken nonsense in the slightest. In fact, one of my original points was how "this keystone of Gwent" probably drives card design towards value amount/distribution that CANNOT be countered by it. Which is exactly what happened during the first week.

Maybe not entirely on its own. Maybe it's "control" in general. But it's undeniable that these new cards were made control-resistant deliberately, and coupled with the fact that KH is THE control card, it's also undeniable that it matters a whole lot more than YOU think.

best single-card removal tool in the game

but IT DOESN'T MATTER. That's the point.

...Which makes this, in particular, a hell of a questionable point to make. How can the best single-card removal tool NOT matter in a game, that has been driven and defined by control for years now? Because what, it failed to counter that one thing [deliberately designed to not be fully counterable by single-target removal] that one time?

See, I agree with a lot of this. There's an overabundance of control, and there's an overabundance of ridiculous instant cards, and ridiculous meme cards and cheese cards and what not. But no, KH is not the culprit, not the biggest bully, and removing it will not fix anything, or make anything better.

Same as above - how can it not be at least partially responsible, being THE control card in a game, where ridiculous stuff is now designed in a control-resistant way, absolutely confirming that devs also see control as a problem? Isn't it the main reason Emhyr and similar cards don't see play? Can't be Boiling Oil or Slash. How isn't it the biggest bully, being the best of the single-target removal cards, together with Invo responsible for non-viablity of a lot of stuff? Finally, how can removing it NOT change anything for this stuff/make anything better, if it it would have the immediate effect of making hard removal more expensive/less reliable across the board?

 

[Valhabbla]

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).

Well, they did print Mammuna at 10p and 4p resilience bronzes after all
...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.

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?

Sorry for the very late reply, but I don't think the wording in your original post is correct. Heatwave doesn't limit the devs, it's more like an encouragement/justification for them to create op cards. Heatwave itself is only as good as the cards it can potentially remove. [...]

 

[Merchant of Mirrors]

Ehm...no

 

[Fargothwave]

Heatwave doesn't limit the devs, it's more like an encouragement/justification for them to create op cards. Heatwave itself is only as good as the cards it can potentially remove. [...]

It's both, actually. You're of course right about encouragement and justification, but its existence ALSO makes prevents devs from creating more reasonable and interactive cards, because what's the point if they can't ever work? Granted, they still try, like with Emhyr, or Rience, or Meve, but the first two have a deploy component which kinda proves that they know viable cards need to have one to be viable. If that's not enough, remember the recent reworks for Artis and Incantation. What did they do? Gave them deploy value specifically, as opposed to some direct numbers buff. They ARE aware of the problem.
Which also means they know that that designing purely delayed-value golds is pointless, even though they do it anyway occasionally. In other words, their creative freedom is indeed limited.

 

[Valhabbla]

It's both, actually. You're of course right about encouragement and justification, but its existence ALSO makes prevents devs from creating more reasonable and interactive cards, because what's the point if they can't ever work? Granted, they still try, like with Emhyr, or Rience, or Meve, but the first two have a deploy component which kinda proves that they know viable cards need to have one to be viable. If that's not enough, remember the recent reworks for Artis and Incantation. What did they do? Gave them deploy value specifically, as opposed to some direct numbers buff. They ARE aware of the problem.
Which also means they know that that designing purely delayed-value golds is pointless, even though they do it anyway occasionally. In other words, their creative freedom is indeed limited.

Yeah you're right there, but even without Heatwave order abilities would still be too easy to stop. We have factions that can dish out an unbelievable amount of damage per turn (looking at you, SK). Furthermore there are locks available to every faction, movement against row-locked stuff or Invocation. When I started playing the game it was already bad, but now the situation is so boring that I've decided to stop investing my time in this game and so far I don't regret it at all. The artwork, quotes and graphics are definitely the greatest I've ever seen in a card game by a large margin, but the gameplay has been a huge let-down most of the time for me.

 

[Fargothwave]

Yeah you're right there, but even without Heatwave order abilities would still be too easy to stop. We have factions that can dish out an unbelievable amount of damage per turn (looking at you, SK). Furthermore there are locks available to every faction, movement against row-locked stuff or Invocation. When I started playing the game it was already bad, but now the situation is so boring that I've decided to stop investing my time in this game and so far I don't regret it at all. The artwork, quotes and graphics are definitely the greatest I've ever seen in a card game by a large margin, but the gameplay has been a huge let-down most of the time for me.

Invo is essentially Korathi 2.0 for the purpose of this discussion, so nearly everything I said about the latter also applies to the former.

Now, you're of course right, there's plenty of other ways to deal with threatening units, but they are different from Heatwave in that you can defend from them/revert them with your own Stray of Spalla, Pellar or, in case of overpowering amount of damage, various delayed body/armor boosts/shields. So you still get a fair shot, if you bring the right tech - which you should. It could be argued that even over-the-top stuff like Freakshow with an active bounty can potentially be prevented from killing that one unit you really want to protect. But of course cards like Heatwave and Invo render all this theory crafting moot.

Yes, there's also stuff like Vilge and Morelse, but using these involves meaningful downsides, so even if your Meve gets shot down, you get a consolation prize in getting another unit on-board or exhausting your opp's coin pouch, so it's still kinda fair. No-downside/condition removal, on the other hand, is just stupid.

 

[Valhabbla]

Invo is essentially Korathi 2.0 for the purpose of this discussion, so nearly everything I said about the latter also applies to the former.

Now, you're of course right, there's plenty of other ways to deal with threatening units, but they are different from Heatwave in that you can defend from them/revert them with your own Stray of Spalla, Pellar or, in case of overpowering amount of damage, various delayed body/armor boosts/shields. So you still get a fair shot, if you bring the right tech - which you should. It could be argued that even over-the-top stuff like Freakshow with an active bounty can potentially be prevented from killing that one unit you really want to protect. But of course cards like Heatwave and Invo render all this theory crafting moot.

Yes, there's also stuff like Vilge and Morelse, but using these involves meaningful downsides, so even if your Meve gets shot down, you get a consolation prize in getting another unit on-board or exhausting your opp's coin pouch, so it's still kinda fair. No-downside/condition removal, on the other hand, is just stupid.

The only problem I see is the big overhaul which will be necessary to compensate the loss of these removal cards (which I think have the downside of being quite expensive, Invo and Heatwave costing 9 or 10 provisions). A ton of cards are already so overtuned that Heatwave has become a necessity to deal with them reliably, because as you said, if they don't get removed, things will get ugly. They need to be taken care of and nerfed accordingly to make the meta less dependent on those removal cards. And I don't think the devs will go that way, especially when I'm looking at the monthly patch notes. I don't think the devs are willing to invest the necessary time to balance this, they will go the easier way.

 

[Fargothwave]

They need to be taken care of and nerfed accordingly to make the meta less dependent on those removal cards.

That would be the best way to handle it. And I agree that devs probably won't bother.

However, there is an easier one that doesn't involve as many drastic changes - just let these overtuned monstrosities be (and maybe gradually bring some older cards to their level, too.)

Yes, sure, something like Gezras is absolutely ridiculous and shouldn't become competitive...but that's only because Damien, Artis, Emhyr, Igor, Meve, Whoreson Sr., nerfed Tunnel Drill etc. aren't really playable, at the very least not competitively. But what if they were?

That would be a completely different story. If everything is overtuned, nothing is. So ultimately I disagree that removing hard unconditional removal would break the meta - yes, the prospect of having to deal with the likes of Vissegerd or Aglais is scary, but not THAT scary, if you can bring equally ridiculous (and, more importantly, more FUN) cards to the fight.

Upd.: so, bottom line, In my opinion, the most organic way to keep the broken cards in check is with other broken cards, as opposed to unconditional and instant denial of potential powerplays. Not having them be broken would obviously be even better, but you've already said why that's not an option.

Upd2.: also, look at it this way - for a while now, devs have obviously been designing cards to be less vulnerable to removal, by splitting their value efficiently/making them at least partially on-deploy. So Heatwave isn't even that good at countering them, and all it does now is gatekeeping older cards from becoming relevant. Removal that isn't tied to numbers in any way was a mistake in the first place, because it trivializes certain core game mechanics(like armor/boosting out of removal range/not boosting into removal range), and maybe it's time to acknowledge it and stop straying from said core mechanics.

 

[Valhabbla]

That would be the best way to handle it. And I agree that devs probably won't bother.

However, there is an easier one that doesn't involve as many drastic changes - just let these overtuned monstrosities be (and maybe gradually bring some older cards to their level, too.)

Yes, sure, something like Gezras is absolutely ridiculous and shouldn't become competitive...but that's only because Damien, Artis, Emhyr, Igor, Meve, Whoreson Sr., nerfed Tunnel Drill etc. aren't really playable, at the very least not competitively. But what if they were?

That would be a completely different story. If everything is overtuned, nothing is. So ultimately I disagree that removing hard unconditional removal would break the meta - yes, the prospect of having to deal with the likes of Vissegerd or Aglais is scary, but not THAT scary, if you can bring equally ridiculous (and, more importantly, more FUN) cards to the fight.

Upd.: so, bottom line, In my opinion, the most organic way to keep the broken cards in check is with other broken cards, as opposed to unconditional and instant denial of potential powerplays. Not having them be broken would obviously be even better, but you've already said why that's not an option.

Upd2.: also, look at it this way - for a while now, devs have obviously been designing cards to be less vulnerable to removal, by splitting their value efficiently/making them at least partially on-deploy. So Heatwave isn't even that good at countering them, and all it does now is gatekeeping older cards from becoming relevant. Removal that isn't tied to numbers in any way was a mistake in the first place, because it trivializes certain core game mechanics(like armor/boosting out of removal range/not boosting into removal range), and maybe it's time to acknowledge it and stop straying from said core mechanics.

Letting overpowered cards stay overpowered and creating more of them so they aren't overpowered anymore sounds pretty logical, but wouldn't that leave the game still one-dimensional? Players don't have to draw their answers (Heatwave, Invo...) anymore, but it's still all about which player draws more of his or her good cards than the opponent. Because instead of having to draw Heatwave to neutralize card X, you now have to draw your own high-end card to make up for the points card X generated. And especially control factions will need a lot of buffs to their old cards to compensate the loss of their "cheap" control tools. Moreover, there's a lot of people who enjoy control and don't just want to slam their cards one by one. I don't know, the ideal solution is definitely inbetween, but as long as there're discussions held about the game, CDPR won't change its core problems. I think they want it the way it is.

 

[Fargothwave]

Letting overpowered cards stay overpowered and creating more of them so they aren't overpowered anymore sounds pretty logical, but wouldn't that leave the game still one-dimensional? Players don't have to draw their answers (Heatwave, Invo...) anymore, but it's still all about which player draws more of his or her good cards than the opponent. Because instead of having to draw Heatwave to neutralize card X, you now have to draw your own high-end card to make up for the points card X generated

A fair concern, but no, it at least would make it less one-dimensional, mainly because the game can't possibly get much more one-dimensional than it is now.

Spoiler: More on that

Have you noticed how modern viable decks hardly feature any interactive/interruptible combos and generally are focused on getting instant and/or combo-independent value? It all boils down to who has more raw points and/or removal, and there's little room for any complex interplay, which is a textbook definition of one-dimensional.

For that matter, the increased ease of removing things and generating a combo-worth amount of no-setup points makes the game especially match-up dependent. Player's input such as sequencing or macro decisions is often not a factor, because even 200 IQ plays won't allow your slow engine deck to win against Madoc or Eldain. But good luck beating a dedicated pointslam deck with Madoc. This system of zero agency in turn often makes the game almost zero-dimensional.

Generally speaking, the problem with draws disparity and its adverse effects is a whole other can of worms and I believe there's a dedicated thread about it. No point bringing it up in this particular discussion. But IMO the game has enough consistency options to draw and play all you need to draw and play, so I don't really get what all the fuss is about.

And especially control factions will need a lot of buffs to their old cards to compensate the loss of their "cheap" control tools. Moreover, there's a lot of people who enjoy control and don't just want to slam their cards one by one.

K, about that... That won't be necessary, because the game is already heaviily skewed towards boardwipe playstyle, to the point where it's kinda easy to forget that "control" isn't strictly synonymous with "removal", because in present-day Gwent they're effectively the same thing. Nerfing instant/super efficient control options would make it so that both proactive and reactive player would have to carefully and gradually work for their goal. As of now, reactive decks are just much easier and straightforward (and, conversely, involve a lot less risk), so yes, "slamming cards one by one" is exactly what is going on right now.

But don't take my word for it, think about it - even if I try hard really hard to protect my unit from bombs and warriors and even, hypothetcally, dedicate 2 or 3 cards in r3 to this purpose, hell, bring a freaking Ale of Ancestors or a Thunderbolt or an Armory just for this, they still can just use a single card and kill my unit regardless of my preparation. They have all the agency in this situation, while I have very little, outside of maybe running a defender. Sounds a bit skewed, eh? If they had to risk too, like bring a Rience to achieve the same result, that would much more fair.

But let's see what happens if we take cards like Heatwave away.

Protective boosting becomes an option for golds again, which in turn would make control-inclined people remember about the other types of control, such as locks, resets, Dire Bears and conditional removal cards, thus making the game more diverse and deep again, as these mechanics are a lot more interactive and fair.

Boardwipes are fun, sure, but only for the player doing it...besides, "control" playstyle is normally supposed to strategically neutralize key units, not freaking destroy everything with ease. And even if Gwent's devs understand it as "freaking destroy everything", it would still be appropriate to give proactive playstyles a chance to actually protect their set-up.

Maybe we'll also need to get rid of the defenders, to keep things truly fair. But that would be a good riddance, tbh.

I don't know, the ideal solution is definitely inbetween, but as long as there're discussions held about the game, CDPR won't change its core problems. I think they want it the way it is.

I am actually curious to know what they really think about the game. Their attitude towards it has been rather erratic, so I don't know what to think anymore.