Why Magmar Has Always Been Broken: A Serious Address to the Devs

[deathsadvocate]

1. Vanar has certainly drawn some complaints, but certainly not to this degree. While some of their early versions drew a bit of hate, considering the last couple metas were dominated by them, and the more recent incarnations seem to be the most toxic, yet I have seen about the same amount of complaining for current magmar in its very very breif time in existance compared to the entire previous stretch, hell vanar was almost completly ignored while azure and phantasm were around despite still being the top deck. I also later mention that the times that vanar were complained about heavily were very similar to the current magmar hate and I had this same reaction to that.

2. For sure, when something is a longstanding issue and or doesn’t have good counterplay it warrants attention, but neither of those are the case currently.

4+

All solid options, and that’s sort of my point, there are tons of good and versatile ways to build none of which tend to gimp your other match ups, and IMO pushs a lot of decks into a really healthy and interactive state instead of just being able to play solitaire, since solitaire stuff gets punished really hard by finality.

Nat select: a balanced and conditional staple, strong part of magmars identity, cant just be auto included since it just doesn’t work with certain decks. Conditional, faction specific removal, that can be played around is a great design. Powerful? Yes. Is that bad? No.

Rebuke: Considering its both linear, and the normal preferred statlines to fight magmar survive it, I think people are overreacting. However three is a bit cheap, possibly moving it to four mana is one of the only suggestions in this thread I agree with, but it also comes with the usual caveat of if we are going to adjust it, cant mess with to much else. At most we can make a small adjustment to two of the three cards mentioned here. Rebuke to 4, and Lavalasher to 4/8 would be a decent idea.

BUT even with me agreeing to those two very small changes, I still say its WAYYY to early to be jumping on any of this, its yet to be seen if it will even be the top deck, cus as I have demonstrated quite a bit already, its not hard to beat if you build with it in mind, and learn to play around its stuff, like you should for all of the S and A tier decks.

That’s a big statement to make. To be fair to you, and the discussion, we should acknowledge that good counterplay is dependent on the archetype played within a faction, and not the faction itself.

Every archetype has good and bad match-ups, but you can, and should tech for your worst ones, unless you just want to play the rock paper scissors game. But just because some archetypes get extra punished by one of the upper tier decks does not mean there is an issue with the tier deck, and its a perfect time to ask for buffs for an archetype rather then attacking its bad match up. That attitude leads to a lot of skewed viewpoints of “I like to play X, but I get hard countered by Y, therefore Y is overpowered and should be nerfed.” Which is a terrible attitude for balance in general, especially when its usually just a refusal to learn and adapt, and often times the perceived OPness isn’t actually accurate and is just a bad match up.

I did tag that one with IMO, but I do really believe it, I think people are greatly confusing overpowered and broken. Magmar MIGHT be overpowered right now, but it is NOT broken. Gates/Mantra are NOT overpowered, but ARE broken. Broken=a lack of counterplay and or not utilizing the board. Overpowered = something that is to overly dominant. And its to early to see if Magmar is OP yet. Also OP cards do not mean the faction is an issue, every faction has OP staples that contribute to their identity, only if a particular faction or archetype gets to an overwhelming point means its OP, and that can happen with or without OP cards.

[seraphicreaper]

Additional question to the topic: Where should the cost of removal stand in regards to the cost of placing said minion worth removing via removal?

Ex: If I play a 4 mana minion and you’d like to remove it, how much should the cost of removal be? 3 mana? 4? 5? 7? This is obviously generic but still hits on an important point for design.

[deathsadvocate]

That’s a really complicated question. You have to factor in faction identity, conditions, counterplay, amount of total removal available, and the fact that reactive plays tend to be weaker then proactive plays. There isn’t a simple formula, plus we have the fact the Duelysts design, like it or not, likes to have lots of answer or die threats, and good answers, and that immediate value minions will always be the prefered choice regardless of the state of removal. For the most part I tend to agree with the removal options that CPG designs.

So because reactive plays are weaker then proactive, generally removal should be cheaper then its target, every condition you add to said removal means it can be more powerful and more effective. Reactive plays are never really an issue no matter how strong, what really matters is how strong your win cons is, the weaker it is the better your removal can be and vice versa.

But I think I am going to stop there, that’s a really deep, and somewhat off topic question.

[seraphicreaper]

Not off topic at all, as it pertains to Natural Selection (and less so Lavaslasher).

After quick though, my opinion: The more niche/conditional the removal, the cheaper the cost. Likewise, the more broad the removal, the higher the cost.

This seems an easy example to provide with something like Crossbones compared to Dark Transformation or Blood of Air (first ones that come to mind). Because the crossbones player risked a more niche form of removal, they are rewarded with a better body and cheaper cost. The other side of trade though, Blood of Air’s perk is more versatility at the cost of more mana.

---

Throwing out a rough criteria:

Minus 1 mana (compared to minion) for having specific condition or keyword (Crossbones, Nightwatcher; though NW doesn’t destroy target)
Equal (or personally +1) mana for having single target generic removal
Plus 1 to 3 mana for board clearing capabilities, -1 to this when board clearing has specific condition.

---

I think removal should generally be equal or more expensive than the threat. If a game’s design has removal being on average cheaper than played minions, which IS reactive in it’s own nature, it rewards removal and defensive play rather than a proactive, engaging play. I think the person playing down minions should be rewarded more for playing it than for the other player playing removal. I view the question to be given to the remover as to whether or not playing their remove card is worth it now or later, rather than the minion player having to debate whether it is worth it for them to play their minion now or later. This is why it can be assessed to reward conditional removal cards with cheaper mana costs. And thus, Natural Selection…

With Natural Selection, it IS conditional. With this AND punish, let’s not ignore that card from the conversation, is that 99% of the time will ALWAYS be used against minions of greater mana cost, LET ALONE equal. With punish even more so, the conditions of meeting these cards are too easy to meet for their cost.

Bring this concept into board affecting cards old Enfeeble and Rebuke. Similar to Nat. Sel. and Punish, 99% of the time cards like these will ALWAYS be used to gain WAY more value than their cost. The fact that old Enfeeble and Rebuke could obliterate for 3 mana what someone can spend 4 to 7 in creating- the margin is just too wide.

You stated an open mind in increasing Rebuke yourself if able or needed, but I posed this question to you because of these points; points I find very on topic.

(Note this conversation can also be tied into other cards like Egg Morph, which I stated I find to be fair, and Thumping Wave, which was too strong before but fair and still solid now).

[deathsadvocate]

You say 99% gain value, I say their conditions are easy for me to play around, and I know not to overextend vs the faction with the best AOE, so I find it to be the opposite. 99% of the time I make using the removal really tough on them, and if they are “gaining value” from it, its because I am forcing them into a reactive state where I can take advantage of their lack of development, and or I am baiting out their removal so I can put together a win con.

On a related note to that, you are grossly over looking the attribute of linear effects, a board wipe, that hits both sides, is only valuable if you play into it. Then you are also overlooking the fact that not even the dedicated control factions have more removal then there are proactive plays, if its simply equal cost, then the proactive player is guaranteed to win since the opponent will eventually run out of removal. A reactive state is a massive penalty and thus removal should be a bit cheaper then its target.

Being on the reactive side of things tends to be a loosing battle, thus why it should be cheap. The reason why blood/dark trans are so expensive is the fact that they have 0 conditions, unlimited range, and always work. But they can certainly still “gain value” towards the end game when you can afford to play and develop with them.

While natural/punish are a little above the power curve they A. only work in the right deck, B. are faction staples that give identity, C. can indeed be played around, and D. are in very limited supply.

Old Enfeeble and Rebuke are under-costed, which is not always a bad thing, but if a faction is starting to be to dominant they are the first thing that needs to be addressed.

I disagree about thumping, its a bit to weak now and is not seeing much play BUT when it got nerfed was one of the few times that magmar was towards the top of the pack, choosing to nerf the cost instead of the stats was crippling, lowering its buff stats would have been much better, but it was an easy target that made sense and while I disagreed with the approach it did the job at a time it was needed.

And now again, like old thumping and enfeeble (overdone at 5 and now sees 0 play because of it, would have been perfect at 4) there could be a small hit to a clearly under-costed card because it is looking like magmar may be pulling out on top again, and if that does happen rebuke makes sense to target. Keep in mind hitting the mana cost, especially for reactive cards, is one of the harshest approaches, but rebuke doesn’t have stats to be adjusted so a mana bump makes a lot of sense.

[kirabi]

With Natural Selection, it IS conditional. With this AND punish, let’s not ignore that card from the conversation, is that 99% of the time will ALWAYS be used against minions of greater mana cost, LET ALONE equal. With punish even more so, the conditions of meeting these cards are too easy to meet for their cost.

Whose job is it to make condition hard to meet? Punish is good but horrible against forcefield. Natural Selection is amazing but if you have a low cost minion along with high cost minion it becomes less good.

I build my decks around rebuke and plasma storm( i haven’t alot of success with combating both) when person plays that card it is hard to get massive value.Players don’t put enough effort in countering things as they should the best example is 2 days into expansion they were already complaining saying it was unstoppable.Currently now their Vanar list that actually does good against Magmar and it going to be fine tuned now in something better

[seraphicreaper]

You say 99% gain value, I say their conditions are easy for me to play around

Whose job is it to make condition hard to meet?

And what I mean is that even by playing around it 1) the opposing magmar player will play around YOUR play, and 2) even if they don’t, because the card costs 2 mana, it will almost always get equal or greater value even if being played around it, as the only way the magmar player gets punished is if they have to use it on a 1 mana minion (hence the ways to play around magmar currently, bbs’s and so forth).

The condition is easy to play around, but it’s also an equally easy condition to achieve for a magmar player due to there usually only being 2-4 minions on a board at any given time (including their own); any more and usually it’s a swarm type in which Plasma Storm and blah blah blah (don’t want to digress lol)

On a related note to that, you are grossly over looking the attribute of linear effects, a board wipe, that hits both sides, is only valuable if you play into it.

Yes, but due to the fact that general proper play is to always hold board advantage, even at 2 minions being destroyed board wipes will hold fair value. I personally find the “hitting both sides” argument to be a moot point, as any player always maximizes their current board before utilizing any self-harming card. If the card were to hurt themselves too much, they just wouldn’t use it at that point.

Then you are also overlooking the fact that not even the dedicated control factions have more removal then there are proactive plays

I would point out that the thing about Magmar is how their current strong cards possess both reactive and proactive tendencies. (Lavaslasher and Makantor)

if its simply equal cost, then the proactive player is guaranteed to win since the opponent will eventually run out of removal.

I think this is a good thing in my opinion.

A reactive state is a massive penalty and thus removal should be a bit cheaper then its target.

Thinking about it. I have no answer at the moment. Have to give it more thought.

(Some thought: when a removal becomes too cheap, it allows for simultaneous reactive play, followed up by a proactive play with leftover mana. This puts the OTHER player in the previous player’s position, which can lead it to being a game of “who has the last removal?”. That is, if removal is too cheap to allow for dual play. But it is this dual play that also exists within Lavaslasher, Makantor, Dancing Blades, etc. which is why they are used and reinforces examination of this design. Not changing, but definite examination of the effects.)

---

Overall, anything I didn’t respond about I’m actually in agreement with (I thought thumping wave stat change would’ve been better too).

I still hold to my issues about rebuke (both with cost and ability strength) and natural selection’s cost, but it’s nice to discuss about these cards. Thank you for entertaining my questions Will still need to think about where removal should be priced.

[baharoth]

And what I mean is that even by playing around it 1) the opposing magmar player will play around YOUR play, and 2) even if they don’t, because the card costs 2 mana, it will almost always get equal or greater value even if being played around it, as the only way the magmar player gets punished is if they have to use it on a 1 mana minion (hence the ways to play around magmar currently, bbs’s and so forth).

You and some other people here should really spend more time playing and less time on theorycrafting. This argument is just so far off of any practical relevance that it hurts to read.

Simple example. What is the value of having an NS in hand when your opponent has an Iron Cliff in your face and an Azure Herald out of reach. Yes, if you play NS you trade 2 mana for 2 mana but does this play hold any practical relevance in this situation? No it doesn’t.

If NS is the only card in your hand you might actually replace it and hope for something better because it’s entirely useless. If you play it you might still die to a divine Iron Cliff next turn. I’d consider that a pretty good punishment for playing NS.

For every case where i get to kill a big minion with NS i have at least 2 cases where i end up replacing it because it’s useless in the current boardstate. Anyone who ever played more than 1 or 2 games with Magmar should know that. NS has little to no value against an opponent who plays around it.

[deathsadvocate]

I would point out that the thing about Magmar is how their current strong cards possess both reactive and proactive tendencies. (Lavaslasher and Makantor)

Not inherently bad, both are conditional, if you meet the condition you deserve the pay out.

if its simply equal cost, then the proactive player is guaranteed to win since the opponent will eventually run out of removal.

I think this is a good thing in my opinion.

This one particularly irks me, I hate aggro, doesn’t mean it shoulden’t exist. I love control, but I realize some people hate it… Both absolutly should exist, its very important for balance and variety. You simply saying you think that is a good thing, is almost the same as you saying control shouldent be viable.

---

The rest I think others have refuted better then I could, or I firmly disagree but we have both stated our bits on and I don’t want to talk in circles.

[seraphicreaper]

Suggesting 2 card 7 mana play example with only 1 card inspected (natural selection) is a terrible way to properly represent a card’s strength.

Natural+Lavaslasher, Makantor, and Plasma work well here, and your example actually shows 7 mana investment for plasma’s 5.

As for Natural being the only card in hand. If it’s from top-decking, then yeah, there’s a whole slew of bad cards to be left with. As for leaving oneself with it, I can’t think of ever leaving myself with 1 card being a reactive removal spell, but then again I’ve never hit diamond. Is it ever good to do that? Sincerely.

You say big minion but my point is that it’s fairly easy to achieve using it on a 3-5 mana minion, all which gets more value out of.

---

@deathsadvocate Was curious about my last point of thought and you didn’t address it. I still see and need to think about the proactive bit more myself.

[deathsadvocate]

You just sort of stated some facts, I didn’t think there was much to examine, that is just how duelyst is made. Like it or not, they like their answer or die threats with lots of good answers and thats not changing nor do I really think it should.

[baharoth]

Suggesting 2 card 7 mana play example with only 1 card inspected (natural selection) is a terrible way to properly represent a card’s strength.

No, it’s the right way to judge a cards strength. You have to consider different practical scenarios, the more common and relevant the better. Looking at cards in a theoretical vacuum detached from practical situations is meaningless. Yes you can theoretically remove Excellsious with it and gain immense value, but how often does this happen? And even if it does it’s your opponents fault for allowing you to do it. I guess Plasma + NS allows you to get around those play arounds but that’s a 7 mana play and purely reactive, your not winning anything that way, at best you reset the board and pass back to your opponent to refill it.

Situations similar to the one i descriped happen multiple times literally every game when your opponent keeps a 2 drop out of reach to protect his big stuff. So i’d consider it very relevant. Doesn’t have to be an Ironcliff, any big minion works here. Like what are you doing with your turn 1 play if it didn’t get removed early on? Throw it into Vaaths face or keep it back for NS protection?

Yes, plasma helps in the descriped scenario but it was just an example, you can use any other minion with >1 attack and it stays the same as far as NS is concerned. Use a 4/5 and both NS and Plasma as well as Makantor/Lavaslasher/Rebuke don’t work. Further more, having other removal available in the situation doesn’t make NS any more useful.

As for leaving oneself with it, I can’t think of ever leaving myself with 1 card being a reactive removal spell, but then again I’ve never hit diamond. Is it ever good to do that? Sincerely.

No it’s not a good idea to do that, which also shows why having reactive cards is in general worse than having proactive cards. And this is the precise reason why reactive cards should be cheaper in general. How much depends on the card.

[halcyon98]

I don’t care too much about my rank, so I can’t really make a judgement on balance. My main gripe with Magmar is how dull it is in general. While other factions rely on powerful synergies, Magmar relies on powerful cards. It’s a lackluster experience, to trigger combos and build a field, only to have the Magmar opponent respond with single powerful minions, devoid of any strategy. Playing against Magmar is simply a bore, when their archetypes are so predictable and uninteresting.

[trulster]

Magmar is how dull it is in general.

As a mainly Magmar player, I have to say I actually agree with this. The current bog-standard Vaath-Finality-Drogon-Cryptographer etc deck is indeed as boring as the wall Vanar or disruption Faie was. Boring to play with/against.

[baharoth]

I’d say that’s something even most Magmar players will agree with. The synergetic concepts of the faction are mostly trash, just look at the Starhorn catered cards, look at grow, look at rebirth/egg support before Ragnora. Instead of fixing that by boosting these concepts with new synergies, like they did now with Ragnora, the Devs just gave them cards void of synergy but with high individual power levels. Result being that the faction right now consists of like 8 cards that are pretty much must haves in any deck and some filler stuff put in around them. Magmar has by far the most trash cards in it’s pool out of all the factions.

So yeah there is certainly a problem with Magmars design, but interestingly nobody really cares about that, all you hear is “nerf please”. If CPG goes along with what some people here suggest in terms of nerfs we might as well delete the faction. If 4 or 5 out of those 8 staples get hit and become useless without a complete faction rework happening along with it then Magmar will fall apart.

[project2el]

Why i cant put 1k Likes to this statement? This is the real problem.

[kirabi]

Yup I am one of the ones who disagree with Magmar being boring .Self damage/twin fangs isn’t boring, Egg synergy isn’t boring.But what works really well is straightforward and yeah some what boring if that’s all you play. We all complained for months when Magmar was just a “good” faction fix rebirth, fix grow, give us more self damage synergy stuff.I saw the community whine but magmar is good stop complaining now they are complaining that same stuff is too powerful.

Magmar does not have any problem with its design imo.Grow is fine if they supported it,Self damage is fine if they supported it, Control is fine if they supported it(they kinda did with Rebuke and finality). But what works of course isn’t the main stuff it is Rush and small other side concepts like Deci/Spikes or Drogon.

That said I am “Timmy” player so i enjoy concepts of dropping big powerful minions.I played against a unfortunate Lyonar yesterday who got see Hulk,Ragebinder, Taygete,Lavaslasher, Armada, Mankantor, Juggernaut in one game and I had two Kraigons in my hand. Dropping big stuff is also fun as well i am sorry some people don’t agree with that but that’s why factions have variety you hate playing against boring magmar ask them fix grow and self damage stuff. Oh yeah starhorn awful bbs too.Magmar decks are mismatch of stuff that just work when you look at it

[halcyon98]

While those are interesting mechanics, I think the essence of those combos are heavily obscured when such synergetic components serve only as auxiliaries for the generic Lavaslasher deck. Perhaps I’m not playing Duelyst as much, but I never really got to see actual strategy entertain a bigger influence than the staple cards mentioned above.

[nickDigger]

Will still need to think about where removal should be priced.

Based on how the game is currently designed, I think removal should be cheaper than the average threat it answers. You are already at a big disadvantage when you are forced to take the reactive role. Many effects in the game deal chip damage or can’t be dealt with before they’ve generated value, because you can’t do anything during your opponent’s turns. You can’t prevent them from getting value from their out-of-hand damage/Rush minions/Opening Gambits. Even if you answer all of them during your turn, you will eventually die to the damage that you receive while it’s not your turn. If removal would be more expensive than the threat it removes, there wouldn’t be much point to playing removal in the first place because while you are spending your resources to equalize the board state, your opponent spends his to kill you. It would result in a game of who gets to go first/snowballs harder. If you want to have comeback and reactive cards, I think you need them to be more efficient Mana-wise than the threats they are dealing with because otherwise it would end up in a race to overrun the opponent with non-interactive value cards. Which, to be honest, it already kind of is. Right now removal is cheaper than the threats it answers and still games end very quickly if both players run optimized lists.

You can try it out yourself. Build a deck that has the sole purpose to control the game and to react to your opponent’s plays. With the exception of running Saurian Finality, you will most likely die before you get to the point where you have the game under control. If it’s even possible to have a game under control without the existence of denial cards (i.e. discard, counter spells, instant removal, hard locks) and the general abundance of card draw and the replace mechanic. The reason why Finality is the exception is because it offsets controls biggest weakness (losing life to cards before they can be dealt with) and attaches it to a proactive effect (buffing attack as well as controlling the game state) that develops the control deck’s own game plan.

I tried to play a control Magmar before the expansion came out. All of Magmar’s removal cards and big late game threats. It completely folded to aggro lists like the old Aggro Cass. When your opponent only plays cards that generate immediate value, you simply can’t play the reactive deck. Whatever resources you spend on dealing with the threat after it generated value is Mana that you can’t spend to further your own game plan or to offset the damage that has already been dealt. If removal would be more expensive there would be even less incentive to go any other route than pure aggro.

Finality feels like the only real control deck that is feasible because it has life gain attached to a proactive card that also advances its game plan.

Your question is super difficult to answer as it encompasses so many of Dueylst’s design principles and all of its cards and I’m certainly wrong about some (but hopefully not all) of the points that I made, but I know from experience that playing a straight up reactive/control deck is very, very hard due to the nature of the game. And currently we do have removal spells that are more efficient than the cards they answer (except for Lyonar of course). Offense is the best defense here and if you increase the Mana cost of removal, you will most likely end up in a game where everybody just throws everything at their opponents face because no one can justify playing reactive/comeback cards because they only delay the inevitable and ultimately set you further behind.

Let me know if anything of what I said made sense. It’s all very theoretical and as such prone to error, but I know that whenever I try to play a real control deck (not some sort of mid range deck) I feel very sad.

[thematsjo]

So yeah there is certainly a problem with Magmars design, but interestingly nobody really cares about that

There are whole threads filled with people saying this. You’re in one with people saying exactly that. Your aggressive attitude is really leading you away from seeing this discussion with open eyes. This persecution complex is getting out of hand.