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.
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.