Impetus for this Thread
Discussions about playing around certain cards are as old as card games themselves, and for good reason. Most card games have strong cards that players can interact with in meaningful ways, typically by boosting their effectiveness when using them, and mitigating their effectiveness when targeted by them. This is a good thing, this is an enjoyable and skillful aspect to card games that most people seem to appreciate.
Recently I’ve been reading a few threads (1, 2, 3, 4) and made at least one myself discussing the prevalence and power of ‘removal’ in particular and how one can’t ‘play around’ a good number of them, so I thought it’d be nice to really examine this concept of ‘playing around’ removal in Duelyst to perhaps focus our discussions and develop a shared understanding of what we think this phrase should mean in the context of this game we love.
‘Removal’ in this thread means any card effect that removes a specific element from the battlefield, either by destroying, transforming or dispelling it. It applies to ‘removing’ an entire entity on the board or just a particular aspect of that entity that was deemed worthy of removing. This includes cards that deal damage although the discussion is centered less around these cards for reasons that will become obvious later on. A lot of cards that we wouldn’t classify as ‘removal cards’ still have removal elements, but I’ll be trying to stick to the more clear-cut examples to emphasize the point
I’ll be going over definitions, the value of ‘playing around’ removal when done well, principles defining good removal and capping off with a number of examples of removal ordered from good to bad (design-wise).
What is ‘playing around’ Removal?
Strictly speaking, ‘playing around’ anything refers to playing in such a way to mitigate, make ineffective or negate one or more actions that another player can take that would be damaging to your goals. You make assumptions about what another player is able or even likely to do and play in such a way that they can’t do those things (effectively). In Duelyst terms an example of ‘playing around’ Makantor Warbeast or Holy Immolation would be to not position your minions and General around a single space when you’re facing a Magmar or Lyonar opponent with certain decks that will have access to sufficient mana to use those cards.
‘Playing around’ removal then–logically–refers to playing in such a way to mitigate, make ineffective or negate one or more removal options that another player can take that would be damaging to your goals. It’s simply a specification of the concept of ‘playing around’ anything.
The reason I write all this out is because I want to make clear that there is an inherent limitation to this–what I believe to be a–very solid, foundational definition that is not likely to be apparent to a lot of players. If I did my job well you’re probably thinking “that seems right to me”, but let’s examine the problem here.
Using this definition, you can play around pretty much any card (aside from the one at the very bottom of this piece) that could reasonably be created. The threads I referenced earlier are filled with complaints about how you can’t play around a lot of the removal out there, but is that right? Let’s take the hot-button card of the moment as an example: Enfeeble.
You can totally play around Enfeeble: don’t play minions. Or play less than the opponent. Or play Illusion or Wraithling decks. Or play Dying Wish decks. And there are probably other suggestions I could make.
The problem with the original definition is that it’s too rigid, too absolute. Instead we should make use of a qualifier to change ‘playing around removal’ into ‘playing around removal, but within reason’. The issue isn’t that you can’t play around Enfeeble, the issue is that you can’t play around it enough. Suddenly we’re not discussing an absolute, but rather a spectrum, a degree to which any one card can be played around. And that changes the discussion completely. Now we can get a grasp on what makes removal good or bad: it needs to be somewhere close to the sweet spot on that spectrum. But how do we construct that spectrum?
Defining Good Removal
Good removal cards allow players to deal with threats they otherwise wouldn’t be able to in an immediate way. It keeps excitement high because the game can always turn around and provides an entire level of strategic and tactical thinking needed to anticipate and deal with enemy removal.
Counter Play
Good removal is designed in such a way to allow the other player to play in such a way that they can play around them to a reasonable degree. This can include placing minions in certain ways, playing them at specific points in time and even not playing them at all in certain match-ups. This leads us to:
Meta Play
“Know your enemy” is one of the basic tenets of warfare and applies to Duelyst as well. Good removal is not ubiquitous, it is used in some decks but not all decks of a single faction (at a serious level of play). Players should be making informed guesses based on the state of the meta and their opponent’s play style: making removal that is so good they’re always included is not ideal. This aspect is meta-dependent and also touches upon power level (which is not what I’m discussing) but I mention it here because we’re discussing an ideal. Moving on.
Conditionality
Good removal cannot be applied to almost any game state. Removal always comes at a discount because of the conditionality inherent to (almost) all removal: it needs a good target in order to be useful. But beyond that, good removal should be especially powerful against players that ‘played into’ (the opposite of played around) them, rather than being useful in almost all situations that typically arise during a match. Except when:
The 5 Mana 'Rule’
This entire piece is opinionated to an insane degree but I need to stress here that this is my particular opinion: It is my personal belief that dedicated removal cards stop needing extra conditionality once they reach a cost of at least 5 Mana. I call this the 5 Mana Rule, and I believe that at this point the intersection of cost and removal-inherent-conditionality is at such a point that a hypothetical 5 Mana ‘Destroy any minion’ base-line spell is completely fair. The player can still get an advantage by removing a more expensive minion, but they’ve paid a sufficient price in opportunity and Mana cost to do so.
Having said all this (and there’s likely far more besides, please comment everything I’ve neglected), let’s get to some examples, ordered from good to bad examples of removal in Duelyst’s current state. I’ll be judging cards based on their design following the principles I’ve laid out, not by their power level.
Ranking some Removal
Entropic Decay is pretty much the perfect removal card in my opinion. It’s not strong enough, but the simple positioning limitation is significant and punishes the opponent for playing in certain ways. It hits all the key criteria for a well-designed removal card, it’s just too weak compared to its competitors.
Decimate and Sky Burial don’t get a lot of praise, but Decimate is an excellent removal card that–once again–punishes the opponent for playing in a certain way, and requires the player to play a certain way as well. Sky Burial gets praise for the same reason, but is too weak compared to its big sibling.
Egg Morph is a great card that really punishes bad positioning. We can see a pattern emerge where 4-Mana removal cards that punish bad positioning score well in my book.
Iceshatter Gauntlet is great conditional removal. It’s cheap because its application is limited an requires other cards to work so that’s fine, but it loses some points because its effectiveness relies solely on your own cards rather than any specific action by the opponent.
Natural Selection is another great Magmar removal card that doesn’t punish positioning, but punishes enemy minion composition. Smart players know to pair their big threat with a back-line weenie to absorb NS, and that’s the kind of counter- and meta play I really like to see. This one could probably be interchanged with Iceshatter Gauntlet and Egg Morph if I were pressed.
Obliterate scores with me because of its extreme setup requirements. Like Decimate it requires a certain deck to work and its high cost negates any positioning requirements. It’s really more of a finisher card, but as removal it always feels fair and players can always see it coming. It doesn’t rank as highly because there’s only very limited interaction with Creep, but it’s a nice card regardless.
Dancing Blades is kind of a corner case but the design is just too good to not mention. Unlike Maw and Arclyte Sentinel Dancing Blades has very specific conditions for it to work and you can really punish careless players that don’t play around it. You get your counter play, meta play, but its conditionality is way low because you can just play it as a decent body and get good value from it.
Martyrdom plays with a unique condition: enemy Health. It’s probably the only existing removal card that gets worse the longer a match goes on! The drawback is big enough to warrant unrestricted range and lower cost, and it punishes the Lyonar player for being aggressive too early and rewards the other player for playing minions with high Health.
Circle of Life & Phoenix Fire don’t have range limitations, but Circle is fine because of the cost and both are fine because of the inherent conditionality of doing damage rather than destroying or transforming an enemy: their Health total matters. You can always play around a card like Phoenix Fire or Circle of Life. Phoenix Fire is probably way too flexible but its smaller impact seems to make the card work out okay.
Blood of Air & Dark Transformation sit right at the sweet spot for Faction removal cards: 5 mana removal with unlimited range, no condition and a Faction-specific benefit. In terms of design I think these cards follow the guidelines to form more or less the mid-point between good and bad removal cards.
Ephemeral Shroud is too good, too much of the time. The ability to get rid of any effects for two mana, and on a body makes the humble Ephemeral Shroud a game-defining minion, limiting a lot that can be done with the game. It’s not ubiquitous, it has a range limitation, but as a two mana Neutral its impact is way over the top when considering there’s barely anything player can do to stop it other than nót playing certain cards entirely.
Enfeeble doesn’t score rock-bottom because it does require a certain board state and a certain deck to be effective. It’s good enough as a three-mana neuter for one enemy minion, but that minion is still useful if it has an effect. Only when paired with a card like Blistering Skorn or Mana Deathgrip does this card really become a problem. Still, this big of an impact on so cheap a card with so little limitation against any common deck type that relies on minions is really pushing the limits.
Holy Immolation has a range limitation, but not by much. Unlike Frostbone Naga its effect is very impactful and can be applied in many different ways and decks. It’s very difficult to play around in a meaningful way and its combination with cheap or Celerity minions makes it too easy to get value off of. It’s pretty much a ubiquitous card for Lyonar players, and that pulls it down this low.
Bloodtear Alchemist is almost always good, but its limited impact keeps it from getting bottom billing. It has no range limitation, no other condition and any player can play it. It’s probably too key to the game to change at this point, but this card just seems to break most of the rules.
Aspect of the Fox finally gets us to the true removal criminals: and this one’s a doozy. A 1 Mana card that can target any minion at any range: wow. It can be used both offensively and defensively and due to the rise of Arcanysts rarely loses the player card advantage anymore. It’s not the worst removal out there because the Ravager can still do something meaningful on occasion, but it’s down there.
Mana Deathgrip. Speaking of down there: Mana Deathgrip is shooting for the crown. Not only does it have close to the Bloodtear Alchemist effect, it has the same cost and a permanent, game-changing effect if its (easy) condition is met. Circulus pushes this card to the extreme because it negates the card advantage problem and it still relies on a good enemy minion to target, but its ubiquity place it as one of the worst.
Thumping Wave is way too flexible for a removal card, and that’s the bottom line. It has no range limitation, it’s cheap and has no other condition. There are very few circumstances where a Magmar player can’t make use of Thumping Wave, be it offensively or defensively. It’s a ubiquitous card with low conditionality, especially within a faction that specializes in Rush cards.
Chromatic Cold is my personal worst removal card out there. It does everything wrong. I swear I like Vanar a lot and I’m not just holding a grudge against you Vanar mains, but let’s be real about this. 2 Mana. No range limitation. No condition. Can target anything, including Generals (even those under Concealing Shroud). Damages and dispels. I’m not even calling for a nerf because I recognize that Factions can have cards that break all the established power curves but in terms of removal this is the only card that I can think of that you just can’t play around other than by just not playing the game.
Conclusion
I know this piece isn’t airtight and I probably started making more mistakes the longer I worked on it, but hopefully it at least got the juices flowing to think about removal and how we might evaluate when a card is fair or not. It should be clear that this is not an easy concept to grapple with, and your ranking of fair and unfair removal cards is likely to look completely different. I can’t think of any easy answers, but maybe you can. I hope to read about them in the comments.
If you stuck with me all the way to here you are a wonderful human being who has earned this visit from the
Japanese Doggo of Japanese Wisdom.
Cheers.
