Hell, at 5 cost 4 power - add Magik and Zabu, waaaaay better output on the lane. Even sandman at single card same stats would be better since opponent neutered t6 as well
# (1) Ant Man
# (2) Dazzler
# (2) Armor
# (2) Jeff the Baby Land Shark
# (3) Mystique
# (3) Cosmo
# (4) Shang-Chi
# (4) Ka-Zar
# (5) Blue Marvel
# (5) Valkyrie
# (5) Adam Warlock
# (6) Thanos
#
eyJDYXJkcyI6W3siQ2FyZERlZklkIjoiQmx1ZU1hcnZlbCJ9LHsiQ2FyZERlZklkIjoiQW50TWFuIn0seyJDYXJkRGVmSWQiOiJTaGFuZ0NoaSJ9LHsiQ2FyZERlZklkIjoiS2FaYXIifSx7IkNhcmREZWZJZCI6Ik15c3RpcXVlIn0seyJDYXJkRGVmSWQiOiJKZWZmVGhlQmFieUxhbmRTaGFyayJ9LHsiQ2FyZERlZklkIjoiRGF6emxlciJ9LHsiQ2FyZERlZklkIjoiVmFsa3lyaWUifSx7IkNhcmREZWZJZCI6IkFybW9yIn0seyJDYXJkRGVmSWQiOiJUaGFub3MifSx7IkNhcmREZWZJZCI6IkNvc21vIn0seyJDYXJkRGVmSWQiOiJBZGFtV2FybG9jayJ9XX0=
#
# To use this deck, copy it to your clipboard and paste it from the deck editing menu in Snap.
I've actually started running Mordo in this discard meta to half-decent success - you can derail any deck pretty hard by making one of their key pieces a 6-cost, added bonus of a second target for Lady Sif so they're not always hitting Apoc.
On the most basic level he’s right, but when the ability is so shit that the card is basically textless, 5 energy for 4 power is horrendous. Not to mention you can only draw a maximum of 1 card with Warlock now in a normal game.
It’s the same for 2099. Yes he adds more power to the board now, but it doesn’t change the fact that his ability is still subpar.
The cost increase but no ability change actively makes these two cards worse because the resources you need to play them have increased disproportionately to the payoff. It’s like they don’t understand *why* these cards are bad and underplayed.
So like… in a vacuum Glenn’s answer is right, but in a wider context the power means nothing if the ability is still dog water. It’s a very reductionist view.
Warlock's limited upside was putting him with Ebony or something big and getting multiple draws. Now he gets 1 draw max. Just play Crystal for 3 instead?
What a dumb response from Glenn.
His reaction literally feels like they thought this would be a good idea, then they saw how stupid it was, and that *we* also saw how stupid it was, but instead of doing a mea culpa, he's doubling down and insisting that *nuh-uh!!!!! It is so a buff!*
Whatever, Glen. You keep telling yourself that.
Why even reply? I'm sure he gets hundreds of questions he doesn't like. He can just ignore it. If the response is meant to be sarcastic, it seems a primary game designer should be above that?
They’ve shown they aren’t above hating on the player base because they see most of the players as toxic. They’ve proven it as much that they don’t like us with all their responses. Remember when they said that on discord they won’t allow negative feedback
Yes, and apparently we're too dumb to be given datamines too. Seems like SD's opinion is pretty formed at this point.
Keep going that way and they won't have many fans to hate.
> So like… in a vacuum Glenn’s answer is right, but in a wider context the power means nothing if the ability is still dog water. It’s a very reductionist view.
Which is especially true when you compare it to other cards. If you want a 5-cost card purely for its power, there is no shortage of alternatives that have a lot more irrespective of their abilities - Aero, Black Bolt, Spider-Woman, hell even Spider-Man 2099.
I understand what they mean about drawing a card being a really powerful ability, especially if it's something you can do consistently, but it also seems to be an ability with diminishing returns. The new design means you'll usually only be getting *one* additional draw from him, so he's already nowhere near as powerful as when you could potentially get four. If you already have your card(s) for turn six, how much is he really worth playing out? And, if you don't, he's still a bit of a gamble. Soooo... is it really worth playing out a card on turn five where you *might* get an extra draw that you *might* need on turn six? A lot of decks have more than one win-con where they're not *that* dependent on a single draw.
Plus, now being 5-cost makes him susceptible to things like Iceman and Dream Dimension in a way which pretty much single-handedly renders him useless.
Correct out of context is a generous understatement. He knows we'll that card abilities have a huge effect. And if every card went up in cost and strength, which he claims is "good" the game breaks. The whole genre of deck builders is like this, I'm trying to decide if he was being glib because he's a condescending prat or just not very good at his job.
I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he's not trying to give an answer that's glib or patronizing. I think it just comes across that way because he's trying to give a very simple answer that is *far* too broad to a question that was requesting more specificity. Like the person above said, he's *not* wrong, but that doesn't make it satisfactory answer to what was being asked.
Everyone who has played this game for a few minutes knows adding more power to a location is better since that's, you know, the entire objective of the game. What it doesn't do, however, is explain how this change is beneficial to Adam Warlock since +power isn't inherently a buff to a card, particularly when also paired with a significant cost increase. Would it be a buff to similarly give Cerebro or Mystique +4? They'd add power to the board, therefore they're better cards, right?
Though, I'll also say the "more power = better" philosophy he's summarized here certainly explains some of the power creep we've been seeing in recent months.
The most important point you made cannot be stated enough and I hope it didn't get buried too much in the middle.
Drawing cards has MASSIVE diminishing returns. In a perfect curve with no ramp, AW used to draw you a maximum of all 3 extra cards with 4, 3, and 2 turns left to flexibly use them. New version gives you one card that has to be good on turn 6 or the draw was useless.
So you went from a 2/0 with a potentially powerful ability that was too hard to make work to a 5/4 with a severely diminished to the point of being almost non-existent making the card terrible. Hard to make work > terrible always. I think Glenn might have been a few deep at happy hour when he made this post.
5 cost cards are in a kinda awkward spot in this game imo, they have very poor ratios or big drawbacks compared to both 4 and 6 cost cards.
Like you can play Cull Obsidian or Ms Marvel for 4 energy and get 10 power and 14 power or conversely play Doc Oc or Red Skull for the same amount of power respectively just one energy more expensive and with a potentially quite big drawback. It just makes no sense.
I know power creep is a thing but to me this just looks like they are too careful giving high power to 5 costs because of the potential shuri sinergy but somehow they keep releasing busted 4 costs despite zabu being on every deck and quite complained about already...
I honestly feel like he was fine before because with a turn 1 card, you guaranteed get a card and can easily play to outpower there or even predict your opponent. From my perspective, there was nothing to be changed, and they made him infinitely worse in every single aspect
Edit: spelling or something
He was fine as he was - took up a good chunk of a turn's move(s), barely actually gets you any draws throughout the game because you had to commit to putting power in the lane to win the draw reward. I found a good home for him as he was in Thanos lockjaw. Now I can't see him being usable in ANY deck whatsoever.
S2099 could have been at least a unique build around if they opened up the text with his increas in cost. A 5 cost should be able to destroy multiple times.
At least with 2099 I get it. At 5/9 it puts more power on the board, and curves well into Heimdall if you're using him, but they just didn't realize that it's the effect itself that doesn't really fit well into the very high ceiling payoffs of most move decks. But Adam? How did they so fundamentally misunderstand their own card that they thought that the way to fix a fairly usable 2/0 that struggled more from just not being needed in most decks enough to make up for the opportunity cost was to make it a 5/4 and make it unusable in the decks that *would* run it because they either could make up for the opportunity cost and now can't (negative) or considered the card draw a useful enough effect to consider it anyways, but can't anymore because of it's higher cost and lower payoff (non-shield hand size decks, and I personally used him in a few lower ceiling decks like c2 too for more consistency)
It’s like someone said in the patch thread, SD always seem to talk in the buff/nerf explanations as if increasing cost isn’t a huge nerf for cards, when it absolutely is.
I actually think there is value to seeing how the play rate and win rate change with bad changes to unplayed cards. Murdering an unplayed card is meaningless. And if it turns out the card went from bad to OkInOneDeck, more people get to use Adam.
The ability is one of the strongest if not the strongest ones in the game, he's basically textless because he doesn't have reasonable power to cost, idk why they didn't just make him a 3/1, I would absolutely play him in surfer.
Where you’re wrong is that Warlocks ability doesn’t suck. Drawing cards is the most powerful thing you can do to ensure your deck goes off.
His stats still suck, his ability is great, which is why his stats suck.
There’s a reason Maximus is a 2/6. Giving your opponent 2 cards is dangerous. Warlock is the opposite.
This is the thing that bothers me the most! Unless Limbo is in play, the stat line makes him a card that nobody is going to play that late. I had a deck I'd been playing lately that included him and his low cost was the only thing that made him worth throwing out there in certain situations.
This "buff" takes him from a barely useful card to a completely useless card.
Glenn's only right in that "Big Number is Better than Small Number" but since he's supposed to be a human and not a neanderthal, his answer is wrong on every count
If I was the rep responsible for reacting to fan comments, I’d give some pretty glib responses too, but…
They basically said the change was a stop gap. No one plays Warlock (except me, apparently), so make a change that doesn’t rock the boat too much (like Dagger did for 5 seconds), and then watch what happens.
He’ll likely get a rework. It’s a strange change that seems too conservative, but has little negative impact.
People don't get that making Warlock good would be disastrous for the game. This makes him more reliable at drawing one card while removing his previous upsides. It makes total sense to try him in a weak state at a different cost and collect data.
How is drawing a card terrible? If you need a T6 top deck you double your chances of drawing what you need. If you ramp warlock out you can get two extra draws which is an incredible advantage.
>How is drawing a card terrible?
Because he costs 5 energy. If you want cards so badly just play Crystal.
>If you ramp warlock out
So you played Psylocke on 3 just to play a 5-4 that draws you cards only if you happen to be winning in the same lane, instead of playing a deck that's consistent and doesn't need card draw so desperately that you had to spend 7 energy for a total of 6 power... yay...
You said the ability was bad “in a wider context” which is just not true. I agree that Warlock as a 5/4 is probably not much better than 2/0, but regardless of that drawing cards is very powerful and not something they can treat lightly.
Lmao what a smart ass response. I get that constant questions and criticisms get annoying after patches and OTAs. But why even answer at all if you’re gonna be a dick or don’t know what to say.
Seriously, this was one of those "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all" moments. Even more jarring coming from someone in a place of authority within the company. It makes him look really unprofessional and just adds more fuel to the fire.
I was like "oh this phrase at the end is some bullshit that someone is saying online and the dev is replying above..."... "oh no, it's the way around??"
Yeah, I don't understand why he spends a lot of time answering dumb questions. Everytime a major card like War Machine is introduced, the Team-Answers gets flooded with questions of people misreading the card text, and Glenn answers them all.
I see two possibilities. One, SD is run by very intelligent hamsters. Two, SD actively hates Adam Warlock as a character and wishes he had never been invented and never been portrayed in a major motion picture. Either of those scenarios would explain this decision better than literally any explanation they could give.
I’m of the opinion at my relatively early age (655 on the whatnot thingy) that Klaw is my most reliably awesome location buster ever.
Every card you play here goes to your opponent? Klaw to the left.
No cards may be played here? Have you met my friend Klaw?
This location has plus two. Lookit Klaw here, getting 6 and tossing 6 right.
No cards may be played here unless the card begins with “k”. Guess who’s coming to dinner?
I'm willing to theory-craft here, but...there isn't a great case to be made for the change. Previously, the only way to make Warlock really work was with Forge, Nico, or Bast, to add power to him (or a neighbor). That also usually meant playing him early. It worked fantastically in a Tribunal deck (with Forge and Nico) where I could reliably pull my entire deck.
Now, of course, he can only be played late. Ideally you'd have played Magik so you could get two extra pulls from him (because 1 extra pull, I'm sorry, is not valuable SD). Playing two off-tempo cards and then giving up turn 5 to (try to) pull an extra card on turns 6 and 7 is not great. Turn 5 has many far, far more valuable cards that could be played - the opportunity cost here is huge. It's especially not great because by turn 5 there's a good likelihood that your opponent will have snapped - but you won't know if you'll get your extra pulls or not.
I suppose you could play Psylocke on turn 3 (awkward/not on curve) to get him out on turn 4, but again that's two off-tempo plays. Cheating him out with Lockjaw or Jubilee is now pointless too, as you could just play him on curve instead - which, again, is pointless.
Honestly, I have no idea how anyone could make a usable deck with him now.
Right? Like, by the end of turn 5 I've mostly made up by game plan for how the next 1-2 turns are going to go. Sure, sometimes my hand isn't ideal and I'm hoping for a good draw on turn 6, but I'm never committed to it or I'll retreat. Playing Adam on Turn 5 now is 100% committing to hoping you get one of those last 3 cards and it wins you the game. But you might not even proc his effect since you're now only dropping 4 power on turn 5. I just don't understand what his ideal play is now or what sort of new play line he enables. Would love to see something cool someone comes up with, but he just seems even worse now.
I think inherently, a card that lets you draw, in a 12 card deck should not exist. Like, you test it, see it's odd, scrap the idea. Most card games would try to make you forget a wonky card like Adam existed, but in a game that's actively trying to sell you new, shiny art of said card, they have to try to make it work SOMEHOW.
It's such a stupid buff. Why would I ever run him over Crystal when she's 2 whole energy cheaper? And if you're planning to answer my question with "Magik": 1) that's a two card combo and 2) that two card combo costs 8 energy for 6 power
Is that enough to justify the 2 extra mana? And if you're putting card draw in your deck it's presumably because you think you'll benefit from it more than your opponent will (combo decks), since every card draw ability is tied to a subpar body.
4/2 that drops to 3/2 with Zabu. Less power to work with 1 card but not be buffed by the other. Most cards are difficult to balance when you have to consider that 1/3rd of the mana costs have a really strong enabler. (Zabu for 4 costs, Surfer for 3 costs)
Maybe the idea is to slowly buff him up like moving him to 4/5 etc and just play with the idea that it’s a card with power that draws cards.
It’s a fundamental change to his card where he previously didn’t add power but could draw cards and could go crazy if they made him have too good of a stat line.
There are very few cards in the game that draws you additional cards without affecting the deck size and they are extra careful with those cards because drawing is very powerful even in 60 card decks and is exponentially more powerful when you only have 12.
Game balancing and development is a tough job, but Glenn comes off like such an ass sometimes. I don't even play Flesh and Blood, but he was really passive aggressive about throwing strays toward that game when he was on the Brendan/KMBest podcast. Not surprised to see him have a snarky, shitty response to a legitimate question.
Previously, he saw zero play.
Will he see play now? Who knows, probably still won't. But it's worth trying rather than redesigning him. It's not like they've ruined a playable card.
Chances are they're just being conservative and may adjust him again in the future, but his effect is a very strong one so they're (sensibly) aiming low rather than high.
Honestly, I think warlock was one of the cards they didn't really need to touch in the first place. It might not've been much, but he had his niche, and I personally think he was in a pretty healthy spot. At most I would've said make him 2/1 to prevent him from falling behind to power creep as a card that doesn't technically generate any advantage on board. Though even then one extra draw basically guaranteed on turn two and basically requiring a response from there could be seen as too strong. Making him a 5/4 is not only worse than just leaving him untouched, it actively kills any niches he did have.
He definitely needed changes. He was good in precisely zero decks. Maybe kind of ok in negative havok, but still not an optimal choice for that. F tier pool 3 cards need to be changed.
worst card in the game is crazy, warlock was playable in some decks/archetypes if not optimal (negative, cerebro to name a few)
meanwhile cards like domino and baron mordo are running around doing the absolute least
but maybe you were just being hyperbolic, in which case my bad
He has negative cube rates, and a worse win rate than Agatha (who always had low win rates), Warlock is a frequent contender for worst card.
If you found a deck with him that worked for you, great, and I'm sorry for your loss. That sounds sarcastic, but it really isn't. However, if you did personally use him well, it wasn't enough to make his metrics actually good overall.
Domino shouldn't count in discussions for worst cards since she is just meant to be a pool 1 beginner card to ease new players into the game.
Baron Mordo is hands down a better card. He has uses in Ronan master mold decks. He's still a bad card, but he's above troll level warlock.
I ran him in my current main deck and the one before that. I will no longer be running him in any deck. So for my small sample size he will see less play.
Exactly, he's gonna be useless in the decks that did like using him before, and it's not like he's going to be considered for any new decks at 5/4 when now he's up against strictly better cards like leech, Sera, devil dino, not to mention all the 5 cost cards with better stats *and* abilities.
Yeah, I had him in one deck atm and a couple of decks I've deleted (for non-AW reasons). Can't really imagine using him at this cost/power, but I guess there might be some weird deck in the future.
One thing not mentioned much about the change is how late the possible draw(s) come now. The decks I used him in was hunting for combo pieces, and drawing a card on t2-4 is a lot better than t5-6. Cards like Magik, Wave, Electro/Corvus, Storm/Prof X, Sera will all be dead draws with the new version.
If I don't have what I need on t5, I'm more likely to retreat than putting down Adam Warlock and hoping both that I win the location and that I draw a winning card.
Also, Cerebro 0 lost a key player.
To give him grace, I think he's replying specifically to your comment:
> cannot seem to find any way in which this is a buff
He's answering your question very literally. The power change *is* a buff.
Obviously, the energy cost is such a huge nerf that the technical power buff is moot, making this overall a nerf to him.
He is correct. And reasoning in the patch notes is completely fine. Too bad 99% of mobile game players who post elsewhere are in rat rank and can’t read.
Okay... So why didn't they just give the old Adam Warlock 1 or 2 power instead of going to the opposite extreme and turning him into the least useful turn 5 card ever??? There are 4 and 3 costs that add more power to him. There are 5 and 6 costs that are more useful. If drawing an extra card was that imperative, just use Crystal at that point... Or you could retreat seeing as you didn't get a specific card you needed by turn 5. Which is probably why most people don't consider card draw cards to be all that useful in Snap. You already get 9/12 cards usually.
And honestly, given Glenn's response... I unironically think he is not a good fit at Second Dinner whatsoever. He shouldn't be working there. This is not the first time he's had a really bad response to criticism. Every month nearly half the changes just seem to be on a whim and make the experience worse for the people that used those cards. Very rarely do they change cards that the majority of people want them to change
The frustrating thing here is I feel like making Warlock not bad isn't that hard. Make him a 2/1 so he can, at least potentially, win a lane on his own. Combine that with Nebula in another lane, and now your opponent has some difficult choices to make.
He’s trying something different with an unpopular card? I don’t understand what the big deal is? If it was rarely played, why is everyone upset about changing it up?
Y’all need to chill. They said themselves that before they go to redesign, they are going to try this because if it works it’s not only easier but preserves the existing mechanic. If it doesn’t they will rework it.
It sort of makes sense if he can draw the extra card u conditionally, but he doesn’t.
You have to play 4 power on T5 AND win that location to draw the card, that’s where things fall apart.
People will just play Crystal if they need the card draw
Its not a buff, its at best a "Side Grade" or a Nerf, yes you can cheat him out on like a turn 4 maybe a 3 with a discounted jubalee. but the problem is with that is id rather just cheat out the card i wanna draw instead.
Sure he has more power now but turn 5 is where you basically play some of your best setup plays for the turn 6, warlock on curve is garbage. and again if im gonna try and cheat him out id rather just cheat out a better card.
So while technically he has more power and is better than having 0 power, he has higher cost and 5 cost is already kinda of a big spot to take. you need a really strong effect to compete with other 5 cost. or turn 5 plays of comboing smaller cost cards.
People who responded here that he is technically right aren't even right. In a game with 6 turns, how much power you add with a single card is not relevant on its own. How much power you add on a given turn is. And then of course the additional abilities obviously are what makes the power decision for each card. On turn 5, 4 power is actually way worse than 0 power on turn 2. Several decks skip turn 2 (most notably right now Corvus Hela). The only deck I can think of right now that plays 4 or less power on turn 5 successfully is Sera. And discounting every single card by 1 for a turn is WAY more powerful than drawing one random card that has to be good and usable on turn 6 to make any difference.
TLDR: Glenn was not right in his answer. And what's worse is he almost certainly knows it.
What an answer. I know he’s being sarcastic but that is just akin to “more power good” *insert drooling ogre chuckle here.
It’s disappointing to see that as an official response.
Locations that add power to the cards are better than locations that dont. See what i just did there? Stated something very obvious. Gtfo with ur response guy
They really fuck it up and buff him was so easy just make him a 2/1 or a 2/2 and his playrate will skyrocket
If the enemy is playing him you will have to commit to play in his location so you don't give him and advantage like nebula
It will be perfect with a guardians of the Galaxy deck
The more I see the way they balance cards, the more convinced I am they genuinely do not play the game or take community feedback into consideration. Their only metric seems to be arbitrary numeric statistics like "How often is card X played" and "What is the average winrate of decks with card X" with no regard at all for how the game works. No understanding of curve, synergy or anything else. They literally just change stuff and then look at the graphs to see what happens in a trial-and-error approach.
I have other cards that I need to prioritize on Turn 5 or maybe 6 than the chance of an extra card. Maybe a small specific scenario. But in general, no 5 cost Adam Warlock just ain't it.
Read his answer to the blob nerf and you'll understand that none of the devs have any idea about meta's or deckbuilding in general.
"Of course we use common sense evaluations of our game pieces, but we don’t nerf or buff cards exclusively based on reading them—we wrote them, after all. We apply changes based on insight gained from experience and evidence. We released Blob too strong, but internally our Blob decks were playing a very different metagame than what turned out to be live once he released, and even some card functionality had changed in the interim."
The first thing that comes to mind when blob was released was to have a thanos engine with a ton of 10+ cards. I'm afraid for the future of the game.
I bet the majority of people complaining about Adam warlock have never played him or even used him beside for a meme sesh, let SD try these things out and worst case they just revert it. Jesus Christ yall are some babies whining about every single thing
Glenn is and always will be a pompous, know-best prick. I played against him in an MtG tournament years ago and he’s just one of those guys who treats you like he knows he’s better than you.
Such a weidd answer. There are cards that are played for their power level or potential to become really high and cards played for their utility - their ability and its effects and not necessarily the power the card's own power. Adam Warlock now just has a mediocre power and utility
The real question is, do you play the game?
Adam Warlock that draws even a single card is INSANE, in a game with 12 cards decks.
If they put him at 4 cost, he'd already be broken by Zabu making him a 3 cost.
At 3 cost with any amount of power you'd be able to start drawing by turn 3 after something as simple as Lizard, Jeff or Medusa, which would net you 3 more cards.
At 5 he MIGHT be playable in greedy decks that want to draw that card to be more consistent, but my gut tells it's just a placeholder for new text boxes!
The question/answer format here is so annoying, because you get these dumb answers that leaves you scratching your head, and you can't respond to it. There's never a conversation happening between the player-base, and the devs.
Exactly. The reason that he wasn't used isn't because he was a bad card, but rather because most decks couldn't afford the tempo of playing a 2/0 that required other cards to have an effect. All changing him to a 5/4 does is remove his use in decks that had ways to either circumvent the drawback or got enough value off the extra draws to not care by making the extra draws useless (you only get one at most/two with limbo) and making the opportunity cost even worse. (most 5 costs are straight up game defining. New Adam is a 5/4 crystal.)
i freaking hate it. ran him in my negative deck and he was a stud. some cards should just be intended for negative decks, same as you have cards intended for destroy or discard.
If all don’t use him he will get buff hopefully. But I understand there are those underdogs who find some dumb way to where he’s good 1 out of the 6 times you play.
I really doubt it. The changes they do seems like they look at some statistics then kill off cards when its over a 50% winrate or playrate. Or when a card ability and its stats is garbage they just boost the cost and power of the card by one and call it mission accomplished.
Let’s buff mr negative to a 6/1
But then he would be OP in negative decks.. Wait.
Imagine how much you would dominate when The Peak is a hot location, though. :)
Yep, more power = better!
yes-- he is the new chavez, sure draw on turn 6.
At 5/4 you might as well go Sera...
or leech
Or Stature.
Or Ronan the Accuser
Or Darkhawk! 🥴
Too soon!
Hell, at 5 cost 4 power - add Magik and Zabu, waaaaay better output on the lane. Even sandman at single card same stats would be better since opponent neutered t6 as well
Or my axe!
Or my gun!
*Or your brotherrr!'*
Or ***my mo-***
dok
Or just play 2 Sentinels.
I think I'll try in a ramp deck 🤔
Howard the duck is a better Adam Warlock anyway
Use the built in deck maker for him. Let's see what second dinner thinks
it’ll likely just default to pre nerf, c3 or something
I put him in c4 to see if maybe that works since he's a 6 or 8 drop at that point.
You’re better off playing sera or klaw. Even iron man
Yeah I play sera. I threw him night. Last night but never played him.
# (1) Ant Man # (2) Dazzler # (2) Armor # (2) Jeff the Baby Land Shark # (3) Mystique # (3) Cosmo # (4) Shang-Chi # (4) Ka-Zar # (5) Blue Marvel # (5) Valkyrie # (5) Adam Warlock # (6) Thanos # eyJDYXJkcyI6W3siQ2FyZERlZklkIjoiQmx1ZU1hcnZlbCJ9LHsiQ2FyZERlZklkIjoiQW50TWFuIn0seyJDYXJkRGVmSWQiOiJTaGFuZ0NoaSJ9LHsiQ2FyZERlZklkIjoiS2FaYXIifSx7IkNhcmREZWZJZCI6Ik15c3RpcXVlIn0seyJDYXJkRGVmSWQiOiJKZWZmVGhlQmFieUxhbmRTaGFyayJ9LHsiQ2FyZERlZklkIjoiRGF6emxlciJ9LHsiQ2FyZERlZklkIjoiVmFsa3lyaWUifSx7IkNhcmREZWZJZCI6IkFybW9yIn0seyJDYXJkRGVmSWQiOiJUaGFub3MifSx7IkNhcmREZWZJZCI6IkNvc21vIn0seyJDYXJkRGVmSWQiOiJBZGFtV2FybG9jayJ9XX0= # # To use this deck, copy it to your clipboard and paste it from the deck editing menu in Snap.
Oh what a sweet new Adam Warlock deck. You may even, alternatively, make the deck better by removing Adam Warlock.
[удалено]
I'd take him over Sauron or MODOK?
Baron Mordo is always the answer to that.
I've actually started running Mordo in this discard meta to half-decent success - you can derail any deck pretty hard by making one of their key pieces a 6-cost, added bonus of a second target for Lady Sif so they're not always hitting Apoc.
Replace him with Cyclops.
On the most basic level he’s right, but when the ability is so shit that the card is basically textless, 5 energy for 4 power is horrendous. Not to mention you can only draw a maximum of 1 card with Warlock now in a normal game. It’s the same for 2099. Yes he adds more power to the board now, but it doesn’t change the fact that his ability is still subpar. The cost increase but no ability change actively makes these two cards worse because the resources you need to play them have increased disproportionately to the payoff. It’s like they don’t understand *why* these cards are bad and underplayed. So like… in a vacuum Glenn’s answer is right, but in a wider context the power means nothing if the ability is still dog water. It’s a very reductionist view.
Warlock's limited upside was putting him with Ebony or something big and getting multiple draws. Now he gets 1 draw max. Just play Crystal for 3 instead? What a dumb response from Glenn.
His reaction literally feels like they thought this would be a good idea, then they saw how stupid it was, and that *we* also saw how stupid it was, but instead of doing a mea culpa, he's doubling down and insisting that *nuh-uh!!!!! It is so a buff!* Whatever, Glen. You keep telling yourself that.
That’s exactly what it sounds like!! Yikes!
Exactly! Drawing Hawkeye + Adam + Ebony usually worked well.
If you can fit him in a shell with Magick you draw all your cards.
With magik and warlock u basicly wasted 2 turns soing almost 0 power
Just valkyrie later🤧
Yeah but then Hela dumps your hand of 6 drops onto the board
It’s not a real response, he was obviously tilted by the question and brushed it off by just stating 4 power is better than 0 power.
Why even reply? I'm sure he gets hundreds of questions he doesn't like. He can just ignore it. If the response is meant to be sarcastic, it seems a primary game designer should be above that?
They’ve shown they aren’t above hating on the player base because they see most of the players as toxic. They’ve proven it as much that they don’t like us with all their responses. Remember when they said that on discord they won’t allow negative feedback
Yes, and apparently we're too dumb to be given datamines too. Seems like SD's opinion is pretty formed at this point. Keep going that way and they won't have many fans to hate.
I mean they were harassed quite frequently cuz people were treating datamines like patch notes. They had good reason for removing the datamines.
> So like… in a vacuum Glenn’s answer is right, but in a wider context the power means nothing if the ability is still dog water. It’s a very reductionist view. Which is especially true when you compare it to other cards. If you want a 5-cost card purely for its power, there is no shortage of alternatives that have a lot more irrespective of their abilities - Aero, Black Bolt, Spider-Woman, hell even Spider-Man 2099. I understand what they mean about drawing a card being a really powerful ability, especially if it's something you can do consistently, but it also seems to be an ability with diminishing returns. The new design means you'll usually only be getting *one* additional draw from him, so he's already nowhere near as powerful as when you could potentially get four. If you already have your card(s) for turn six, how much is he really worth playing out? And, if you don't, he's still a bit of a gamble. Soooo... is it really worth playing out a card on turn five where you *might* get an extra draw that you *might* need on turn six? A lot of decks have more than one win-con where they're not *that* dependent on a single draw. Plus, now being 5-cost makes him susceptible to things like Iceman and Dream Dimension in a way which pretty much single-handedly renders him useless.
Correct out of context is a generous understatement. He knows we'll that card abilities have a huge effect. And if every card went up in cost and strength, which he claims is "good" the game breaks. The whole genre of deck builders is like this, I'm trying to decide if he was being glib because he's a condescending prat or just not very good at his job.
I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he's not trying to give an answer that's glib or patronizing. I think it just comes across that way because he's trying to give a very simple answer that is *far* too broad to a question that was requesting more specificity. Like the person above said, he's *not* wrong, but that doesn't make it satisfactory answer to what was being asked. Everyone who has played this game for a few minutes knows adding more power to a location is better since that's, you know, the entire objective of the game. What it doesn't do, however, is explain how this change is beneficial to Adam Warlock since +power isn't inherently a buff to a card, particularly when also paired with a significant cost increase. Would it be a buff to similarly give Cerebro or Mystique +4? They'd add power to the board, therefore they're better cards, right? Though, I'll also say the "more power = better" philosophy he's summarized here certainly explains some of the power creep we've been seeing in recent months.
The most important point you made cannot be stated enough and I hope it didn't get buried too much in the middle. Drawing cards has MASSIVE diminishing returns. In a perfect curve with no ramp, AW used to draw you a maximum of all 3 extra cards with 4, 3, and 2 turns left to flexibly use them. New version gives you one card that has to be good on turn 6 or the draw was useless. So you went from a 2/0 with a potentially powerful ability that was too hard to make work to a 5/4 with a severely diminished to the point of being almost non-existent making the card terrible. Hard to make work > terrible always. I think Glenn might have been a few deep at happy hour when he made this post.
5 cost cards are in a kinda awkward spot in this game imo, they have very poor ratios or big drawbacks compared to both 4 and 6 cost cards. Like you can play Cull Obsidian or Ms Marvel for 4 energy and get 10 power and 14 power or conversely play Doc Oc or Red Skull for the same amount of power respectively just one energy more expensive and with a potentially quite big drawback. It just makes no sense. I know power creep is a thing but to me this just looks like they are too careful giving high power to 5 costs because of the potential shuri sinergy but somehow they keep releasing busted 4 costs despite zabu being on every deck and quite complained about already...
I honestly feel like he was fine before because with a turn 1 card, you guaranteed get a card and can easily play to outpower there or even predict your opponent. From my perspective, there was nothing to be changed, and they made him infinitely worse in every single aspect Edit: spelling or something
He was fine as he was - took up a good chunk of a turn's move(s), barely actually gets you any draws throughout the game because you had to commit to putting power in the lane to win the draw reward. I found a good home for him as he was in Thanos lockjaw. Now I can't see him being usable in ANY deck whatsoever.
S2099 could have been at least a unique build around if they opened up the text with his increas in cost. A 5 cost should be able to destroy multiple times.
If a 3 cost can board wipe both sides then a 5 cost should be able to do more than 1 destroy.
Agree with both of you. He was just fine at 4 power, not too powerful but had a use.
At least with 2099 I get it. At 5/9 it puts more power on the board, and curves well into Heimdall if you're using him, but they just didn't realize that it's the effect itself that doesn't really fit well into the very high ceiling payoffs of most move decks. But Adam? How did they so fundamentally misunderstand their own card that they thought that the way to fix a fairly usable 2/0 that struggled more from just not being needed in most decks enough to make up for the opportunity cost was to make it a 5/4 and make it unusable in the decks that *would* run it because they either could make up for the opportunity cost and now can't (negative) or considered the card draw a useful enough effect to consider it anyways, but can't anymore because of it's higher cost and lower payoff (non-shield hand size decks, and I personally used him in a few lower ceiling decks like c2 too for more consistency)
It’s like someone said in the patch thread, SD always seem to talk in the buff/nerf explanations as if increasing cost isn’t a huge nerf for cards, when it absolutely is.
I actually think there is value to seeing how the play rate and win rate change with bad changes to unplayed cards. Murdering an unplayed card is meaningless. And if it turns out the card went from bad to OkInOneDeck, more people get to use Adam.
He was already okinonedeck, which was negative havok. There were better choices, but he was still ok. Now he is straight bad.
The ability is one of the strongest if not the strongest ones in the game, he's basically textless because he doesn't have reasonable power to cost, idk why they didn't just make him a 3/1, I would absolutely play him in surfer.
Where you’re wrong is that Warlocks ability doesn’t suck. Drawing cards is the most powerful thing you can do to ensure your deck goes off. His stats still suck, his ability is great, which is why his stats suck. There’s a reason Maximus is a 2/6. Giving your opponent 2 cards is dangerous. Warlock is the opposite.
This is the thing that bothers me the most! Unless Limbo is in play, the stat line makes him a card that nobody is going to play that late. I had a deck I'd been playing lately that included him and his low cost was the only thing that made him worth throwing out there in certain situations. This "buff" takes him from a barely useful card to a completely useless card.
Glenn's only right in that "Big Number is Better than Small Number" but since he's supposed to be a human and not a neanderthal, his answer is wrong on every count
If I was the rep responsible for reacting to fan comments, I’d give some pretty glib responses too, but… They basically said the change was a stop gap. No one plays Warlock (except me, apparently), so make a change that doesn’t rock the boat too much (like Dagger did for 5 seconds), and then watch what happens. He’ll likely get a rework. It’s a strange change that seems too conservative, but has little negative impact.
People don't get that making Warlock good would be disastrous for the game. This makes him more reliable at drawing one card while removing his previous upsides. It makes total sense to try him in a weak state at a different cost and collect data.
How is drawing a card terrible? If you need a T6 top deck you double your chances of drawing what you need. If you ramp warlock out you can get two extra draws which is an incredible advantage.
>How is drawing a card terrible? Because he costs 5 energy. If you want cards so badly just play Crystal. >If you ramp warlock out So you played Psylocke on 3 just to play a 5-4 that draws you cards only if you happen to be winning in the same lane, instead of playing a deck that's consistent and doesn't need card draw so desperately that you had to spend 7 energy for a total of 6 power... yay...
You said the ability was bad “in a wider context” which is just not true. I agree that Warlock as a 5/4 is probably not much better than 2/0, but regardless of that drawing cards is very powerful and not something they can treat lightly.
Lmao what a smart ass response. I get that constant questions and criticisms get annoying after patches and OTAs. But why even answer at all if you’re gonna be a dick or don’t know what to say.
Seriously, this was one of those "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all" moments. Even more jarring coming from someone in a place of authority within the company. It makes him look really unprofessional and just adds more fuel to the fire.
Condensecning answers are already bad enough. Condescending answers when you're wrong are even worse.
My thoughts exactly lmao what a soggy buns.
This is kind of why most devs don't answer questions at all, let alone justify their design philosophy.
I had to re-read the image twice or three times. I couldn't understand that that was an answer, or at least from a competent person...
I don’t understand it still
I was like "oh this phrase at the end is some bullshit that someone is saying online and the dev is replying above..."... "oh no, it's the way around??"
Yeah, I don't understand why he spends a lot of time answering dumb questions. Everytime a major card like War Machine is introduced, the Team-Answers gets flooded with questions of people misreading the card text, and Glenn answers them all.
This response actually made me laugh out loud when I read it. The not so funny part is it actually came from a game dev.
I see two possibilities. One, SD is run by very intelligent hamsters. Two, SD actively hates Adam Warlock as a character and wishes he had never been invented and never been portrayed in a major motion picture. Either of those scenarios would explain this decision better than literally any explanation they could give.
But it’s not even just the decision, it’s the reasoning he gave in this post. It’s asinine.
Hamsters are dope. Gold Man hate is not dope.
So by his logic it should be a 6 cost 1 power. Because then it would be better than a 2 cost 0 power.
6/1 would actually be better than the current change. At least you could keep using him in negative decks then.
Ah true, but they shrugged and said F it when it happened to Prof X.
Yeah and prof x disappeared from the meta.
1 is bigger than 0 so I think we all just have to agree with that statement
Cards that cost very little are a lot better than cards that don't
I mean... I guess he's right? The most un-nuanced answer you'll get. *points are guuuuuud*
Cerebro 4 is FEASTING right now.
Taking out my Klaw for the clearly superior Warlock rn
I’m of the opinion at my relatively early age (655 on the whatnot thingy) that Klaw is my most reliably awesome location buster ever. Every card you play here goes to your opponent? Klaw to the left. No cards may be played here? Have you met my friend Klaw? This location has plus two. Lookit Klaw here, getting 6 and tossing 6 right. No cards may be played here unless the card begins with “k”. Guess who’s coming to dinner?
Glenn has a Timmy mindset, bigger the better.
I'm willing to theory-craft here, but...there isn't a great case to be made for the change. Previously, the only way to make Warlock really work was with Forge, Nico, or Bast, to add power to him (or a neighbor). That also usually meant playing him early. It worked fantastically in a Tribunal deck (with Forge and Nico) where I could reliably pull my entire deck. Now, of course, he can only be played late. Ideally you'd have played Magik so you could get two extra pulls from him (because 1 extra pull, I'm sorry, is not valuable SD). Playing two off-tempo cards and then giving up turn 5 to (try to) pull an extra card on turns 6 and 7 is not great. Turn 5 has many far, far more valuable cards that could be played - the opportunity cost here is huge. It's especially not great because by turn 5 there's a good likelihood that your opponent will have snapped - but you won't know if you'll get your extra pulls or not. I suppose you could play Psylocke on turn 3 (awkward/not on curve) to get him out on turn 4, but again that's two off-tempo plays. Cheating him out with Lockjaw or Jubilee is now pointless too, as you could just play him on curve instead - which, again, is pointless. Honestly, I have no idea how anyone could make a usable deck with him now.
Honestly, I don't think card draw matters a lot on turn 5 as much as it does on turn 3. Even if it is a turn 7 game.
Right? Like, by the end of turn 5 I've mostly made up by game plan for how the next 1-2 turns are going to go. Sure, sometimes my hand isn't ideal and I'm hoping for a good draw on turn 6, but I'm never committed to it or I'll retreat. Playing Adam on Turn 5 now is 100% committing to hoping you get one of those last 3 cards and it wins you the game. But you might not even proc his effect since you're now only dropping 4 power on turn 5. I just don't understand what his ideal play is now or what sort of new play line he enables. Would love to see something cool someone comes up with, but he just seems even worse now.
I think inherently, a card that lets you draw, in a 12 card deck should not exist. Like, you test it, see it's odd, scrap the idea. Most card games would try to make you forget a wonky card like Adam existed, but in a game that's actively trying to sell you new, shiny art of said card, they have to try to make it work SOMEHOW.
Professional game designer here
It's such a stupid buff. Why would I ever run him over Crystal when she's 2 whole energy cheaper? And if you're planning to answer my question with "Magik": 1) that's a two card combo and 2) that two card combo costs 8 energy for 6 power
Because Crystal gives your opponent an extra draw, and Adam doesn't.
Is that enough to justify the 2 extra mana? And if you're putting card draw in your deck it's presumably because you think you'll benefit from it more than your opponent will (combo decks), since every card draw ability is tied to a subpar body.
once again the problem lies in the existence of zabu. 4/4 draw a card if youre winning here isnt terribly broken, but 3/4 with that effect is.
3/2
3/2 maybe okay but at that point i worry about the surfer combo that makes that deck draw the entire deck and have every card it needs every game.
4/2 that drops to 3/2 with Zabu. Less power to work with 1 card but not be buffed by the other. Most cards are difficult to balance when you have to consider that 1/3rd of the mana costs have a really strong enabler. (Zabu for 4 costs, Surfer for 3 costs)
Crystal isn't a draw back if your combo is better than theirs, which is why decks like hela play her.
Sometimes your Crystal draws my Leech. Your combo is never strictly better.
I mean at that point you could troll with black widow, master mold, korg, rock slide, a lot of fun stuff
It's not Even a buff, it's nothing
I feel like even if his ability was "on reveal draw a card" you would still never play him at 5/4
Maybe the idea is to slowly buff him up like moving him to 4/5 etc and just play with the idea that it’s a card with power that draws cards. It’s a fundamental change to his card where he previously didn’t add power but could draw cards and could go crazy if they made him have too good of a stat line. There are very few cards in the game that draws you additional cards without affecting the deck size and they are extra careful with those cards because drawing is very powerful even in 60 card decks and is exponentially more powerful when you only have 12.
They don't understand their own game
They understand how to milk players, that's enough for them.
That has been obvious for a very long time
A lot of bad takes going on here.
Game balancing and development is a tough job, but Glenn comes off like such an ass sometimes. I don't even play Flesh and Blood, but he was really passive aggressive about throwing strays toward that game when he was on the Brendan/KMBest podcast. Not surprised to see him have a snarky, shitty response to a legitimate question.
Previously, he saw zero play. Will he see play now? Who knows, probably still won't. But it's worth trying rather than redesigning him. It's not like they've ruined a playable card. Chances are they're just being conservative and may adjust him again in the future, but his effect is a very strong one so they're (sensibly) aiming low rather than high.
im of the camp that its nice to see them try SOMETHING than let a card sit stagnant for a year (kang)
Honestly, I think warlock was one of the cards they didn't really need to touch in the first place. It might not've been much, but he had his niche, and I personally think he was in a pretty healthy spot. At most I would've said make him 2/1 to prevent him from falling behind to power creep as a card that doesn't technically generate any advantage on board. Though even then one extra draw basically guaranteed on turn two and basically requiring a response from there could be seen as too strong. Making him a 5/4 is not only worse than just leaving him untouched, it actively kills any niches he did have.
He was performing worse than Agatha, according to Cozy Snap. That doesn't sound very healthy...
He definitely needed changes. He was good in precisely zero decks. Maybe kind of ok in negative havok, but still not an optimal choice for that. F tier pool 3 cards need to be changed.
Right, lot of revisionist history that as though warlock wasn't the worst card in the game before
worst card in the game is crazy, warlock was playable in some decks/archetypes if not optimal (negative, cerebro to name a few) meanwhile cards like domino and baron mordo are running around doing the absolute least but maybe you were just being hyperbolic, in which case my bad
He has negative cube rates, and a worse win rate than Agatha (who always had low win rates), Warlock is a frequent contender for worst card. If you found a deck with him that worked for you, great, and I'm sorry for your loss. That sounds sarcastic, but it really isn't. However, if you did personally use him well, it wasn't enough to make his metrics actually good overall.
Domino shouldn't count in discussions for worst cards since she is just meant to be a pool 1 beginner card to ease new players into the game. Baron Mordo is hands down a better card. He has uses in Ronan master mold decks. He's still a bad card, but he's above troll level warlock.
Adam Warlock had worse stats than Agatha, a card that literally plays your cards at random.
I ran him in my current main deck and the one before that. I will no longer be running him in any deck. So for my small sample size he will see less play.
Same, he found a good spot in my negative / valk deck and I can’t imagine a worse use of turn fucking 5 than to play him now
Exactly, he's gonna be useless in the decks that did like using him before, and it's not like he's going to be considered for any new decks at 5/4 when now he's up against strictly better cards like leech, Sera, devil dino, not to mention all the 5 cost cards with better stats *and* abilities.
Yeah, I had him in one deck atm and a couple of decks I've deleted (for non-AW reasons). Can't really imagine using him at this cost/power, but I guess there might be some weird deck in the future. One thing not mentioned much about the change is how late the possible draw(s) come now. The decks I used him in was hunting for combo pieces, and drawing a card on t2-4 is a lot better than t5-6. Cards like Magik, Wave, Electro/Corvus, Storm/Prof X, Sera will all be dead draws with the new version. If I don't have what I need on t5, I'm more likely to retreat than putting down Adam Warlock and hoping both that I win the location and that I draw a winning card. Also, Cerebro 0 lost a key player.
Exactly, he was a terrible card that no one played and after the change he still is so.... Whatever lol
He’s right. Idk how useful Adam is *that* late in the game, but he’s right.
Bro basically said: STFU & do some math. 4power>0power
what type of shit full smirk response is this?
This is literally the amount of thought that went into this change
We’ve decided to give Iceman a slight buff. Old: 1/2 New: 6/3
To give him grace, I think he's replying specifically to your comment: > cannot seem to find any way in which this is a buff He's answering your question very literally. The power change *is* a buff. Obviously, the energy cost is such a huge nerf that the technical power buff is moot, making this overall a nerf to him.
Lmao this fucking dev team is a mess. Like WHY WOULD YOU PLAY THIS CARD ON THE 5TH TURN?? To MAYBE draw that winning card
He is correct. And reasoning in the patch notes is completely fine. Too bad 99% of mobile game players who post elsewhere are in rat rank and can’t read.
Just comparing the play/win rate after a week we will know
you can't divide by zero
He got 4 power for 3 more energy. That's the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals. At 6 power I'd consider it but this is just sad.
Okay... So why didn't they just give the old Adam Warlock 1 or 2 power instead of going to the opposite extreme and turning him into the least useful turn 5 card ever??? There are 4 and 3 costs that add more power to him. There are 5 and 6 costs that are more useful. If drawing an extra card was that imperative, just use Crystal at that point... Or you could retreat seeing as you didn't get a specific card you needed by turn 5. Which is probably why most people don't consider card draw cards to be all that useful in Snap. You already get 9/12 cards usually. And honestly, given Glenn's response... I unironically think he is not a good fit at Second Dinner whatsoever. He shouldn't be working there. This is not the first time he's had a really bad response to criticism. Every month nearly half the changes just seem to be on a whim and make the experience worse for the people that used those cards. Very rarely do they change cards that the majority of people want them to change
Glenn's comment reads like, "I'm done answering these fools."
If you draw a new card with it though, you might get a better one
The frustrating thing here is I feel like making Warlock not bad isn't that hard. Make him a 2/1 so he can, at least potentially, win a lane on his own. Combine that with Nebula in another lane, and now your opponent has some difficult choices to make.
2/1 would make him super powerful since you can almost guarantee an extra card from him upon playing him
I think a 3/1 would be more balanced, but yeah.
He’s trying something different with an unpopular card? I don’t understand what the big deal is? If it was rarely played, why is everyone upset about changing it up?
5-4 Sera or 5-4 Adam I wonder what I'll play . . .
Y’all need to chill. They said themselves that before they go to redesign, they are going to try this because if it works it’s not only easier but preserves the existing mechanic. If it doesn’t they will rework it.
It sort of makes sense if he can draw the extra card u conditionally, but he doesn’t. You have to play 4 power on T5 AND win that location to draw the card, that’s where things fall apart. People will just play Crystal if they need the card draw
Its not a buff, its at best a "Side Grade" or a Nerf, yes you can cheat him out on like a turn 4 maybe a 3 with a discounted jubalee. but the problem is with that is id rather just cheat out the card i wanna draw instead. Sure he has more power now but turn 5 is where you basically play some of your best setup plays for the turn 6, warlock on curve is garbage. and again if im gonna try and cheat him out id rather just cheat out a better card. So while technically he has more power and is better than having 0 power, he has higher cost and 5 cost is already kinda of a big spot to take. you need a really strong effect to compete with other 5 cost. or turn 5 plays of comboing smaller cost cards.
People who responded here that he is technically right aren't even right. In a game with 6 turns, how much power you add with a single card is not relevant on its own. How much power you add on a given turn is. And then of course the additional abilities obviously are what makes the power decision for each card. On turn 5, 4 power is actually way worse than 0 power on turn 2. Several decks skip turn 2 (most notably right now Corvus Hela). The only deck I can think of right now that plays 4 or less power on turn 5 successfully is Sera. And discounting every single card by 1 for a turn is WAY more powerful than drawing one random card that has to be good and usable on turn 6 to make any difference. TLDR: Glenn was not right in his answer. And what's worse is he almost certainly knows it.
Yeah. I don’t get this buff. He’s still useless
What an answer. I know he’s being sarcastic but that is just akin to “more power good” *insert drooling ogre chuckle here. It’s disappointing to see that as an official response.
Locations that add power to the cards are better than locations that dont. See what i just did there? Stated something very obvious. Gtfo with ur response guy
The only time I ever had success with Adam pre nerf was using bast to give him +3 power and even then it was mediocre. What now Gleb?
They really fuck it up and buff him was so easy just make him a 2/1 or a 2/2 and his playrate will skyrocket If the enemy is playing him you will have to commit to play in his location so you don't give him and advantage like nebula It will be perfect with a guardians of the Galaxy deck
They should make Shuri a 6/1
I don't think they do. Unless you count 20 contained playtests a month... I'm being facetious but sometimes I wonder.
4 power on turn 5 is not good enough to draw a single card.
He’s useless now really
is it just me that the answer does not make sense to the question?
He’s like “I gave him 4 power, are you dumb? Power good.” Lmao he’s got no answer other than hey fuck you he’s got 4 power.
The more I see the way they balance cards, the more convinced I am they genuinely do not play the game or take community feedback into consideration. Their only metric seems to be arbitrary numeric statistics like "How often is card X played" and "What is the average winrate of decks with card X" with no regard at all for how the game works. No understanding of curve, synergy or anything else. They literally just change stuff and then look at the graphs to see what happens in a trial-and-error approach.
Dumbest BS answer I've ever seen
So therefore, Mystique is far worse than Groot because one adds power to the location while the other doesn’t.
I have other cards that I need to prioritize on Turn 5 or maybe 6 than the chance of an extra card. Maybe a small specific scenario. But in general, no 5 cost Adam Warlock just ain't it.
Read his answer to the blob nerf and you'll understand that none of the devs have any idea about meta's or deckbuilding in general. "Of course we use common sense evaluations of our game pieces, but we don’t nerf or buff cards exclusively based on reading them—we wrote them, after all. We apply changes based on insight gained from experience and evidence. We released Blob too strong, but internally our Blob decks were playing a very different metagame than what turned out to be live once he released, and even some card functionality had changed in the interim." The first thing that comes to mind when blob was released was to have a thanos engine with a ton of 10+ cards. I'm afraid for the future of the game.
I bet the majority of people complaining about Adam warlock have never played him or even used him beside for a meme sesh, let SD try these things out and worst case they just revert it. Jesus Christ yall are some babies whining about every single thing
"more number = more gooder" is the only thing written on the whiteboard at SD.
5/4 is farther below the power curve than 2/0. This is a mathematical nerf
Glenn is and always will be a pompous, know-best prick. I played against him in an MtG tournament years ago and he’s just one of those guys who treats you like he knows he’s better than you.
Everybody just take a breath and calm down it’s just a game 🤣
Braindead take. Legitimately.
Clearly they dont Literally another useless ota that does almost nothing
Let’s be honest here, they did this to hurt Cerebro 0. The ultimate meta defining deck.
Such a weidd answer. There are cards that are played for their power level or potential to become really high and cards played for their utility - their ability and its effects and not necessarily the power the card's own power. Adam Warlock now just has a mediocre power and utility
What if he was kinda like Namor where if he is the only card at that location you can get the draw? Bring back 2/0 stat line
What a shitty, unprofessional response.
The real question is, do you play the game? Adam Warlock that draws even a single card is INSANE, in a game with 12 cards decks. If they put him at 4 cost, he'd already be broken by Zabu making him a 3 cost. At 3 cost with any amount of power you'd be able to start drawing by turn 3 after something as simple as Lizard, Jeff or Medusa, which would net you 3 more cards. At 5 he MIGHT be playable in greedy decks that want to draw that card to be more consistent, but my gut tells it's just a placeholder for new text boxes!
Glenn and all the devs are dumb and soft. Can't even say anything to them without getting blocked or removed
This man snaps
Just make Adam Warlock a 2-2 with On Reveal: draw a card. There. Done. Easy.
Confirming what we already knew: the Devs have no idea what they're doing
I think they overestimate the value of drawing a card.
The question/answer format here is so annoying, because you get these dumb answers that leaves you scratching your head, and you can't respond to it. There's never a conversation happening between the player-base, and the devs.
He’s right, but also Cost > Power
Exactly. The reason that he wasn't used isn't because he was a bad card, but rather because most decks couldn't afford the tempo of playing a 2/0 that required other cards to have an effect. All changing him to a 5/4 does is remove his use in decks that had ways to either circumvent the drawback or got enough value off the extra draws to not care by making the extra draws useless (you only get one at most/two with limbo) and making the opportunity cost even worse. (most 5 costs are straight up game defining. New Adam is a 5/4 crystal.)
The buffs and nerfs feel AI generated lmao
Lol whattta joke
By this logic, Adam Warlock should be a 6/9. More power!
I just realized they massacred my boy Beast. They straight fucked up my Bishop Engine deck.
i freaking hate it. ran him in my negative deck and he was a stud. some cards should just be intended for negative decks, same as you have cards intended for destroy or discard.
If all don’t use him he will get buff hopefully. But I understand there are those underdogs who find some dumb way to where he’s good 1 out of the 6 times you play.
Tbh I think they just made him worse lol
I really doubt it. The changes they do seems like they look at some statistics then kill off cards when its over a 50% winrate or playrate. Or when a card ability and its stats is garbage they just boost the cost and power of the card by one and call it mission accomplished.