For what it looks like now Excelsious looks fine as a card. I’m definitely going to be running it in my Zi’ran deck as a finisher for those long games. If CP is revealing a card like this at the beginning of the month then hopefully they are working on a more control orientated landscape.
Is Excelsious Indicative of a Larger Design Problem?
Reaver is actually a really common card in the archetypes where he fits well, like big and swarm lilithe. But those archetypes themselves aren’t really common. The card itself is actually really good. Also, a thing worth mentioning is how vorpal doesn’t have provoke. As such when you can’t answer it you can at least try to block it’s path from hitting your face twice. With Exc, you’re basically fucked. It’s also safe to assume how at that stage of the game the card will have a total attack value of 10 or so, which means it will deal 20 face damage and that’s implying it doesn’t get buffed even further.
I know it’s really easy to compare the card to vorpal due to them both having the same stats and celerity. But like you mentioned, they work differently within the context of their factions. Vorpal is usually a card that you try to cheat out by playing it early and hope it doesn’t get dispelled so you can big board advantage or lots of face damage if there’s no board, or it serves as a simply good body which also has a great benefit when it dies for a swarm deck. While Exc is basically just a card you drop really late in the game after trying to exhaust enemy of removals by playing other various big bodies, and if it works it just wins you the game.
On paper at least, I can see a ziran running a hard control deck, with lots of healing, removals, and big bodies (stuff like 3x marty, 3x rejuv, multiple Zirs, elys and second suns. And it’s goal being just to go as late into the game as possible, taking its really slowly and not caring about enemy’s HP what so ever. Then after the game has been going for really long and you really need to hit the shitter, you drop the Exc and win the next turn because poor cassy already used her 3x bond and 3x shroud. Of course, you can already do this to some degree with late game cliffe + 2x DB but that is three cards so fuck that.
I know I will definitely be giving the deck a shot if I end up opening the card.
5 Likes
Very true, but the more expensive a single thing is, the more devastating the impact of this kind of remval/negation. This design encourages players to play multiple smaller threats rather than single big ones because the same counter can answer a 3 Mana minion as well as a 9 Mana one. Losing an entire turn to a 3 Mana counter is a lot worse than losing only one of the two or three minions you just played to it.
Martyrdom vs Excelsious = 1 card + 3M vs 1 card vs 8M
is worse than
Martyrdom vs Silverguard Knight = 1 card + 3M vs 1 card vs 3M
In a game where tempo tends to be of far greater importance than card draw
[quote=“qeltar, post:3, topic:6661, full:true”]
I’ve been saying that the abundance of counters/removal/dispel in this game represent a copout that allows the creation of impressive-looking minions that will never actually matter. Usually I get shouted down for this opinion, but the more they put out these ludicrous “answer or die” cards, the more obvious it is that this is where we are now.[/quote]
While I’m not as cynical of the motivations behind CPG’s design, we obviously agree on this issue. I’d rather see games decided by big end-game threats than by cheap vanilla hard counters.
[quote=“stealthhobo, post:7, topic:6661, full:true”]About dispels: I think that dispel effects are maybe a bit overrated with Duelyst crowd. Multiple times when I have had my Klaxxon dispelled and my opponent sending laugh emotes at my way. Well, they still have to deal with 6/6 minion on board, and that’s no laughing matter. I think the same is true for Excelsious, which I think is a fun looking, splashy minion.
Also, in Duelyst, using removal can be a huge tempo loss (Dark Transformation, Entropic Decay, Egg Morph) and some removal spells come with a condition (Natural Selection, Zen’rui). In this game it is much more effective to play more threats than answers. Eventually your opponent just can’t answer everything.[/quote]
Nice MtG parallel there, I noticed the same in my MtG experience and I always disliked it! I agree that dispel vs a card like Klaxon isn’t as big a deal because I’d still gladly play a 4 Mana 6/6 with OG: Your opponent discards an Ephemeral Shroud! But even Klaxon is just slightly expensive enough (right now) to see limited play in the current meta: a 6/6 played on my 8 mana (and most likely 9 mana) turn is going to get an even more raw deal. Not to mention that Klaxon’s DG makes it considerably more difficult to remove. The tempo loss is very real but applies especially when you’re using it on minions with similar or lower costs: negating the opponent’s 8-9-Mana’s worth of tempo for only 1-5 Mana is an entirely different proposition. How often would you nót hard remove a Dragonbone Golem or Pandora if you had the answer in-hand? And both of those are one Mana cheaper.
[quote=“stratosphere, post:8, topic:6661, full:true”]
Excelsious is indicative of a larger design problem, but I think its the other way around. There are too many answer-or-lose minions in this game. The worst offenders are minions that can generate value from far away, like 4 winds magi or kelaino or mechaz0r, which are some of the least fun cards to play against. The worst meta of all time was right after the 0.61 patch when sunsteel defender was a 5/1 forcefield celerity, and if you couldn’t kill it, you usually died next turn to any buff + songweaver which also gave flying.
If you do not have an answer to excelsious the turn he’s played, there is basically no way to win[/quote]
I do really like this way of looking at things, but which came first? Is there OP removal because there are OP threats, or are there OP threats because there is OP removal? I know for a fact that Excelsious is being released áfter Sun Bloom and Thumping Wave. If a game is going to end anyway, and CPG has stated that they want Duelyst matches to be comparatively fast, doesn’t it make sense that a big 8 Mana drop is going to end that game, most of the time? Isn’t it more enjoyable to see games finish because a player got their move off rather than because the opponent was able to thwart it using a 1 Mana spell, or a 2 Mana minion? I’m not advocating for more linear strategy, and I do agree that this game packs answer-or-die threats that should be changed (especially at 6 and 7 Mana), but I stand convinced that the answers are the real problem. I, for one, don’t mind losing to big cards like Obliterate: the match has gone on long enough, I failed to answer or play around my opponent’s clearly-established strategy: I should lose. A subjective preference here, but I guess that’s what this part of my argument comes down to. I like diversity of play and I think letting players pull of their big combos later in the game is a satisfying way of letting matches end.
[quote=“dewize, post:12, topic:6661, full:true”]
You could be onto something. I personally think that while you need a way to deal with ranged threats, removal should be more conditional. I personally think Magmar nailed it when it comes to removal. There are tons of conditions to it, but it still works wonderfully. But as others already said, is it actually healthy to have such big threats that scream at you “Answer or die”?[/quote]
A lot of Magmar’s removal is really excellent from a design standpoint, agreed! Only Thumping Wave really breaks the conditionality mold. I think answer-or-die cards shouldn’t exist or at least be as prolific at the 6 and 7 Mana slots: the game is still young then, and while the threats should be strong, you shouldn’t absolutely NEED a hard counter to win. A the 8 and 9 Mana slots however, I do think those cards should have game-ending effects. By then you’re on at least your sixth turn of the match (not counting Orbs) and if the match effectively ends on a big Obliterate blowout turn I believe that’s been a potentially satisfying match. As I wrote earlier, I do agree we should have a good hard long look at some of these answer-or-die cards; losing a match because you didn’t draw on of your three Onyx Bear Seals to deal with a Deathstrike Heartseeker just has FeelsBad.jpeg plastered all over it. That’s probably a controversial example, but I hope you take my point.
Well yeah, it can happen, but very often it doesn’t, to the degree that game is in a state where very few >6M cards see real play! I believe that says enough by itself: aggro and midrange-focused decks are just waaay more effective than decks that rely on big late-game cards; especially if they don’t have immediate impact. Even Obliterate isn’t warping the meta, and that has an immediate effect!
Why not? Excelsious won’t become active until the seventh turn at the earliest and would still be hard countered and soft countered by tons of things even if CPG makes changes like the ones I suggested. Do we mind Obliterate in the same way? If Excelsious is too powerful when compared to something like Obliterate I’d be fine with tuning it down by the way.
Other minions don’t cost 8 Mana ;). You can play other minions alongside other things: with Excelsious you’re skipping an entire turn of building tempo and momentum on the board, and you’re doing it late in the game: if it doesn’t win you the match, why bother? Because it’s getting you killed otherwise. If I play Sky Phalanx I’ll still be fine if one of my Knights gets Natural Select’d. Not so much for Excelsious. Dispel does leave a body, but the opponent payed two or four Mana for that dispel, leaving them with 6-7 or 4-5 Mana to do other things during their turn as well to deal with the body (if they still need to).
I’m claiming that very expensive minions that don’t have a (nearly) guaranteed effect (Pandora doesn’t have an OG but still has an immediate effect) suck in the game as it is currently under the great majority of conditions, and to a degree that they’re too much of a risk to see serious play. Does that clear it up?
1 Like
Where do you get this from? Your own experience? Mine contradicts that, I’d guess the chance it gets dispelled in late-game is 40% at most, dealt with in any form I’d guess 66%.
I watch a lot of tournaments and there too this is seen.
First off, thanks very much for the in-depth response! I always appreciate those.
Nothing is useful in a vacuum, I don’t find this way of thinking to be all that useful. I don’t believe the issue is the amount of ‘ifs’ but rather those ‘ifs’ particular characteristics. Duelyst doesn’t rotate cards out of any kind of Standard set, so we’ll continue to have these hard counters for the foreseeable future. Since Duelyst’s we haven’t seen big cards like this one define the meta, and simply making them more and more ridiculously powerful to try and make them viable (i.e. my 100/100 Airdrop Frenzy example) hasn’t been working, as exemplified by the response to Excelsious. If you can’t fix an aspect of the game by releasing more cards I think we can call that a design problem. Even not having a Standard rotation can be seen as an aspect of that design problem. The answers are simply too strong and universal for me to imagine every nót seeing a use for them.
And that’s exactly the way things should be, glad we agree! So shouldn’t a big 8 mana threat end the game most of the time? Answering it with a ubiquitous 3-Mana spell means that slow matches just drag on because players are unable to end the game with threats like these. If you argument is that 8 mana cards shouldn’t be feasible because Duelyst matches should end before they come into play I don’t know what to tell you: petition CPG to redesign these cards into 6 Mana versions and stop releasing control cards like Azure Herald?
You do realize I’m talking not júst about Excelsious, but about any existing and future potential 8 or 9 Mana minion, right? You can denounce me as a simple Timmy with delusions of being a Spike, but if my assertions are correct these problems permeate the entirety of that class of card, limiting the kinds of cards CPG can design that will actually see play. Regardless, why would I ever be content with allowing CPG to print useless cards for the ‘just for fun’ crowd if there are reasonable ways of pleasing both them and the 'like to win ’ crowd through good design?
Examples, please? Because I did not do such a thing and I don’t appreciate the accusation. Dispel does leave a body, but a 6/6 isn’t able to end a match like an X/X Celerity is, and that’s what you NEED from an 8 (or 9 with Barrier) mana minion to make it worth the effort.
Depends on the board state; control players tend to retreat into corners for safety. And I did call it a soft counter.
Is Duelyst not trying to be better than other card games? Also, a lot of these other games tend to be slower: losing Ragnaros to a Polymorph is less severe if you’re likely to have ways of catching up over a few turns.
Because I’d like to see the card get played: I like to see a diversity of decks in the meta. My entire treatise revolves around Excelsious not necessarily being the problem though, so feel free to disregard the thought. I was commenting on what kind of change it might need to see to actually enable a deck within the meta.
Also, please don’t condescend to me or poison the well by framing things in terms of my personal preferences. We’re having a discussion about game design, I’m not upset that I’m not getting that toy I want.
Those are all good points, but their problems only really affect cheaper minions: Excelsious is far more expensive and comes into player far later. I mentioned the other rebuttals elsewhere already.
I want to play big minions some of the time, yeah, and I think a lot of people do. I like diversity of play and a wide meta. I don’t like facing the same deck every other match, and I’m pretty sure you don’t either. Implementing the design necessary to allow for decks with heavy tops alongside light ones seems like a worthwhile effort to me to achieve these ends. So far, CPG hasn’t been able to just release more cards to make this possible and so far I haven’t seen anyone come up with ways they might. Here’s hoping RotB shows me a way I (and maybe others) hadn’t even considered yet.
My own experience yes, I don’t believe anyone has access to statistical data here, so we’re left to an intersubjective consensus. I also get it from the state of the meta as I understand it. If you were referring very specifically to júst dispel then yes, it’s not always going to get dispelled. Add removal onto that however, things get less optimistic. But regardless, you need a positive win rate to have a successful laddering deck (made complicated by win streaks, but still) so even if your big win condition is getting neutralized in some way 40% of the time in a game where a lot of matches are decided in advance of the 8 Mana turn you’re very unlikely to achieve that success. Remember, these cards are so big they take up the entire turn: they’d better be worth it to see play. Do you see a lot of >6 minions getting play? Spectral Revenant, Pandora and maybe Dark Nemesis? I’m asking honestly by the way, you might have a more objective impression than I do.
The 40% dispel is not the end of the minion, a dispelled eclipse is still a 3/7 that can body-block, swing a couple times, be buffed again etc. etc.
The 66% ‘dealing with’ includes luring whip and repulsor (which effects can be nullified by some cards or time) and a rush minion that kills itself off against it (which leaves a neutral board state again).
(Btw, yes, these percentages are purely based on gut feeling, nothing else, so could be quite a bit off.)
So, getting your card dealt with does not equate a loss or even a swing in boardstate. It can happen, but it’s not guaranteed. (Of course another possibility is that your minion may be ignored and the other person wins anyhow (just adding it for completeness sake).)
One thing you should never do is run out of steam. Even with a lot of card-draw only having cheap minions in your deck will not cut it. Eventually you’ll want the stronger, costlier stuff. And if they remove Elyx, then summon Excelsious the turn after. If they remove that, maybe you’ll have an Ironclad and Divine Bond in hand?
Point is, the one card doesn’t need you to win. It’s the question whether a deck without it wins more often than a deck with it. And if you’re looking at that whole picture I see a LOT of high tier players running strong minions. (Some factions less, like Vanar, but still.)
And I see them unanswered enough that they do you win the game sometimes, and if they do get removed you do NOT automatically lose.
Yeah, I agree. At turn 8-9 games should usually end. But I think that Obliterate and Excelsious are a bit different. One requires a proper setup, the other one, erm, not really. That does bother me a bit. A tiny bit.
its a turn 9 card simple play 2 of this and 3 barriers one barrier for ironcliffe one for stormblade and one for this
2 Likes
Well, in a way it does end the game when you play it: you either brutally murder your opponent, or you lose a LOT of resources for little in exchange, which I would imagine is a good way to lose. What do you mean by “end the game” if that’s not it?
Well, the way I see it, in order for a card to cost so much, that cost has to be justified, right? Obviously with Excelsious it’s because it ends the game or buys you a turn or loses you the game, with no in betweens. However, if the traditional thinking of “cards with OGs are inherently better than things without them because they do stuff before your opponent can react” is applied to a minion of that size, in order to guarantee it’s useful when played, what design pops out? OPINION We already have Rev at 7 mana and god knows that’s enough of a problem. /OPINION Do we really need more cards that have such a large impact that can’t be reacted to?
They’re closer to mutually exclusive than you might think. Of course they don’t HAVE to be, with stuff like Abyssal Juggernaut exemplifying this. However, Spikes like fast cards, inherently, because faster almost always equals better. Timmies like big cards, but if you make a big card fast, then you’ve probably gone down a very wrong path. cough cough 4 mana 7/7 cough cough
Besides, it doesn’t actively detriment you to have a card you won’t play in a set that’s been released. That just means you won’t play it. Why not please different audiences?
Well, you’re talking about metas and cards being good enough and stuff, and then go on to list a whole load of cards that never ever see the light of day. In this context, that’s padding. I guess you’re right about the board state mattering when talking about soft removals, but a celerity minion can realistically move across half of the board per turn, and then can attack even further than that. There are only a small subset of board states in which soft removal meaningfully impacts Excelsious.
I think that’s a poor question to ask because it’s wholly subjective; sure, as far as market capitalism goes it has to be better than competitors in some way, but realistically, Duelyst is trying to be Duelyst, just like most other things are trying to hold identity. That’s the reason we can even compare things which honestly aren’t directly comparable in the first place.
I didn’t mean that, poor phrasing, sorry.
As far as diversity of decks goes, there are different metas. Each division has its own meta, as well as subsets within those divisions, and the tournament scene. This is all dictated by what knowledge is common versus rare, and what scenarios are common versus rare, and on the ladder, by how close you are to the rank floor (from above it).
For example, Windstorm Obelysk might be popular in Silver because hey, it makes more dervishes! But it’s not popular in Diamond because people have the knowledge, from experience or hearsay, that +1 hp is actually detrimental to your dervish positioning. These are things the devs keep in mind when they design; the different ecosystems appreciate different things.
On top of that, something that is meta now might fall out of favor in the future, and the other way around. Developers for card games plan sets months and/or years in advance. This is intentional. It allows shifting things gradually, and it allows players to use their knowledge to evaluate new cards, or to experience old things in a new environment, to see how these things work.
From what we’ve had spoiled already, it looks like they’re encouraging a slower game, which makes sense: BBS has a hard limitation on when and how frequently it can be used, so cards that do make use of it are going to want to go later. Considering the whole set it based around it, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a significant impact on the game. Even if big minions are not viable except as all-in plays now, it is unwise to discount them permanently, especially during spoiler season. After all, 40 new cards (especially with such cool, impactful effects as we’ve seen) are sure to change the environment a great deal.
2 Likes
[quote=“Aeruniel, post:27, topic:6661, full:true”]
The 40% dispel is not the end of the minion
One thing you should never do is run out of steam. Even with a lot of card-draw only having cheap minions in your deck will not cut it. Eventually you’ll want the stronger, costlier stuff. And if they remove Elyx, then summon Excelsious the turn after. If they remove that, maybe you’ll have an Ironclad and Divine Bond in hand?Point is, the one card doesn’t need you to win. It’s the question whether a deck without it wins more often than a deck with it. And if you’re looking at that whole picture I see a LOT of high tier players running strong minions. (Some factions less, like Vanar, but still.)[/quote]
All these responses hinge on your card nót costing 8 (or 9) Mana to play. Eclipse barely sees play already, and it’s a 6 Mana card that allows you to play it earlier and play something else if you play it later on. The next few times your match ends at 9 Mana, ask yourself: could you have afforded to lose your 9 Mana turn to a Sunset Paragon? Or could you have afforded losing that Provoke or those stats? And if both answers are yes, ask yourself: could I have won simply using what I had on board already, maybe augmented by a simple Lucent Beam or something else?
I’ll be surprised if Excelsious is going to come out as the optimal play after you’ve answered those questions.
I can agree to that; I’d have liked more setup for a card like this. Right now it’ll work fine as a splash in any Argeon deck that runs Healing Mystic/Azure Herald and Holy Immolation. On the flip side, Obliterate has an immediate effect and doesn’t require another card to be likely to work, not to mention the Healyonar archetype still needing a push to be viable. But yeah, Obliterate comes out on top in this regard.
I think you’re still looking at a part and not the whole, because you seem to miss my point, I think.
Let’s just say that I’m agreeing with you, just disputing whether or not that mitigates the card’s drawbacks enough.
First every card has gazilion counters in duelyst,Second i agree with the art thingy,last but not least stop whining about cards where you dont know what other cards are coming in the future so yeah please no offense sorry
Ah ok, fair enough, I don’t know that either, I just know I will definitely try it out, but that’s not weird, I like to have playtime with each and every card.
1 Like
Going to say that I’ve played games without efficient removal… They tend to blow.
Though, few of the “hard counters” are efficient, or even hard counters- they are indicative of a design virtue, not a problem. Threats need to be threatening, to build excitement and tension- and answers need to be effective to provide strong reversals. Having players carefully hot-potato threats is part of what makes a card game exciting. Excelsious, much like Elyx is a can of distilled asswhoopin’- but Duelyst hasn’t really gotten to enjoy the feel of “Titan Magic”, which the board is far more suited to than 93 flavors of weenie rush. Titan Magic requires expensive, powerhouse threats, and clean, resource efficient answers to seize initiative with your own Titan, or punish your opponent for developing their Titans too quickly.
2 Likes
You’re right, revenant is a 7 mana card that actually sees play, but not every big card has to be revenant. Revenant answers a threat and deals face damage at the same time, greatly accelerating the pace of the game. In later turns you can even play BBS and 1/2 mana cards alongside it which is a huge deal. It and makantor warbeast actually fulfill extremely similar roles and both have great consistency because you can include 3x of them. Neither require any setup on the player’s part whatsoever.
Compare that with late game threats in hearthstone. N’zoth is game ending… but requires setup, both in dying minions and because if their board is full they can deal with yours easily or just kill you. You also can’t play any other cards at the same time. C’thun can clear the board and deal face damage at the same time, but requires sub-par minions to set him up and has a limited pool of damage, and he is vulnerable after he either ends the game or clears the board. Again, you can’t do anything else that turn. Grom is actually very similar to revenant but comes in a class without a hero power that affects the board, specifically requires a combo setup to deal burst damage (in which case you can’t do anything else), and cannot both board clear and burst at the same time. And none of these are as consistent or repeatable as something like revenant.
See, you’re right, a 9 mana card reading “win the game” would be incredibly boring and stupid. But it is possible to design late game bombs that, while extremely powerful and difficult to completely answer (all three have featured in legend-worthy control warrior decks), also can be played around. Although to allow cards like that to exist I think you need to minimize the number of cards that are like revenant and makantor warbeast that are just great at everything all the time, especially when combined with the face damage your weenies already did.
1 Like
I suppose it would do so most of the time, point to you. We were discussing games ending at around 8 or 9 mana as being a bad thing; that’s why I brought up the argument. I think it’s fine to have matches end at that point; continually frustrating each other’s attempts to win would be counter to the spirit of the game at that point.
I hope it’s clear that I don’t want to see more cards like Revenant. I’d rather they didn’t exist and we’d see either cards that allow for response or that require clear and foreseeable setup (Mechaz0r, Obliterate).
If I were to accept Excelsious as a Timmy card I’d have to call it a Timmy card that is unlikely to succeed at doing what it’s supposed to. Timmies also enjoy winning at least some of the time, but most of all Timmy likes to win (or lose) big. That only works if the attempt to make that big play actually goes off a reasonable amount of the time and matches come down to who can make their big plays work. Duelyst currently has such an abundance of ways to frustrate this kind of play that it doesn’t pan out, and doesn’t pan out more the more expensive the play is. And for Spikes this state of affairs pigeonholes big minions as well: only those with immediate or guaranteed effects see play for them. Speed is one of the main ways but not the only way to win: pulling off an effective combo can be just as valid an approach for Spike players, which circles me back to arguing that big minions can satisfy the needs of both Timmies ánd Spikes, and in the current state of the game Excelsious (and cards like it) can’t satisfy either. Vanar’s new Grandmaster Embla is exactly the kind of card that has the potential to make both types happy; she does so by relying on an immediate effect but still.
You said that all card games suffer from removal not scaling with their targets; I responded by saying that Duelyst could be different. I think my response didn’t come across like that to you. Duelyst already features several (good) removal cards that have restrictions and/or conditions; I’m simply suggesting that logic be applied to more cards.
[quote=“maelrawn, post:32, topic:6661”]
As far as diversity of decks goes, there are different metas. Each division has its own meta, as well as subsets within those divisions, and the tournament scene. This is all dictated by what knowledge is common versus rare, and what scenarios are common versus rare, and on the ladder, by how close you are to the rank floor (from above it).
For example, Windstorm Obelysk might be popular in Silver because hey, it makes more dervishes! But it’s not popular in Diamond because people have the knowledge, from experience or hearsay, that +1 hp is actually detrimental to your dervish positioning. These are things the devs keep in mind when they design; the different ecosystems appreciate different things.
On top of that, something that is meta now might fall out of favor in the future, and the other way around. Developers for card games plan sets months and/or years in advance. This is intentional. It allows shifting things gradually, and it allows players to use their knowledge to evaluate new cards, or to experience old things in a new environment, to see how these things work.
From what we’ve had spoiled already, it looks like they’re encouraging a slower game, which makes sense: BBS has a hard limitation on when and how frequently it can be used, so cards that do make use of it are going to want to go later. Considering the whole set it based around it, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a significant impact on the game. Even if big minions are not viable except as all-in plays now, it is unwise to discount them permanently, especially during spoiler season. After all, 40 new cards (especially with such cool, impactful effects as we’ve seen) are sure to change the environment a great deal.[/quote]
I don’t know why you’re explaining how metas work to me, did I give the impression I don’t understand the concept? Windstorm Obelysk would be as popular or more popular in any meta if it were changed to not be counterproductive to its archetype, I don’t understand what you’re arguing here. That it’s a card that’s designed to be discarded in favor of others as players learn more about the game? Why would you ever design cards in this manner? I can understand including intentionally weak cards in the basic sets (although I don’t agree with the practice), but Windstorm Obelysk is a card that could easily have a place in an archetype that has only two other cards of its kind. If you’re arguing that ‘it might be useful someday’ I could only respond ‘True, but in the mean time it’s just wasting space, devaluing Orbs and frustrating diversity of play.’ To avoid making this discussion about Windstorm Obelysk specifically I’ll leave it there, and re-affirm that there are definitely cards that have a fine design, but just don’t have the right environment to flourish (yet).
I hope RotB has the effect as you describe it; I’d like to see slower decks becoming more viable alongside the current ones. I’ve already explained why I don’t think it’ll happen, but I like being surprised so here’s hoping.
1 Like
removal and dispel are finite resources. in general the player slamming down threats the opponent needs to answer every turn (something this game has been making easier and easier to do starting even on turn 1) has the advantage and will keep it. the only thing that’s going to beat it is the deck that can use out of hand damage to get lethal faster not the deck that aims to have removal or dispel in hand every turn. the reason excelsious is not going to be threatening isn’t because of the amount of cheap removal, it’s because of the amount of out of hand damage in the game guaranteeing most decks can close out the game the turn after you play it if they haven’t already.
lyonar heal now has a god!!! all bow down to your god!!!