should cosmo get nerfed?

[Hikiko0mori]

Question

I've seen this spacedog more then i can count he fits in to allot of decks and is just good tech, maybe TOO good.

He's a 3/3 with an ongoing effect that stops onreveals. now most decks have on-reveal cards ( hela, patriot, cerebro, even ongoing itself has on-reveals).

so my question is should such a card be Cheap to play? should such a card be 3-3 and not like 3-1 or 3-0, im thinking this because a few other cards that are tech based dont have a favorable statline - shang-chi is a 4-3 enchantress is 4-4 wich is the other one thats pretty good for the stats but not AS annoying as cosmo is. Rogue is a 3-1 and steals an ability i would like to see cosmo fit more along the lines of paying for the cost to Tech on-reveals.

the other change i could see them add is not make it ongoing, make it stop on-reveals for a turn that be decent enough for a 3-3 statline and that way you are not just boned for playing on-reveal decks for the remainder of that location

what are your toughts? do you think my assesment is fair here?

im trying to think ways of being less angry when voicing my opinions and discomfort about the game

[Alcatraz]

Yes, they should nerf him! It's important to have a counter for "On Reveal" decks, but he is not only countering them, he kills them! Wong became almost useless because of Cosmo (Wong has other counters, but Cosmo is the most frequent).

But knowing how "Second Dinner" nerfs, he would become 3/2. A nerf only on paper.

[Hikiko0mori]

Originally posted by Alcatraz:

Yes, they should nerf him! It's important to have a counter for "On Reveal" decks, but he is not only countering them, he kills them! Wong became almost useless because of Cosmo (Wong has other counters, but Cosmo is the most frequent).

But knowing how "Second Dinner" nerfs, he would become 3/2. A nerf only on paper.

yeah but a 3-2 is allready weaker then what he is now + he wont be able to hold prio on a location if you play him there 1 power difference can sometimes mean allot

[VastGirth]

No. If you nerfed cosmos it would make several other cards OP.

[Hikiko0mori]

Originally posted by VastGirth:

No. If you nerfed cosmos it would make several other cards OP.

i mean again. he out right kills some decks now, i was forced to RETREAT many a game because the location got closed off and he played a cosmo on the remaining one. i mean just make it a turn instead of forever that wouldnt out right kill the card just like spiderman who prevents you from playing cards there for a turn

[VastGirth]

Originally posted by Fuho:

Originally posted by VastGirth:

No. If you nerfed cosmos it would make several other cards OP.

i mean again. he out right kills some decks now, i was forced to RETREAT many a game because the location got closed off and he played a cosmo on the remaining one. i mean just make it a turn instead of forever that wouldnt out right kill the card just like spiderman who prevents you from playing cards there for a turn

Many cards have the ability to close down lanes and all decks have counters.

Its like saying Amour should be nerfed because his very strong against destroy decks. Follow that logic and you would need to nerf many many cards.

If you keep losing for the same reason you should be trying to build a better deck that can negate this.

[Hikiko0mori]

Originally posted by VastGirth:

Originally posted by Fuho:

i mean again. he out right kills some decks now, i was forced to RETREAT many a game because the location got closed off and he played a cosmo on the remaining one. i mean just make it a turn instead of forever that wouldnt out right kill the card just like spiderman who prevents you from playing cards there for a turn

Many cards have the ability to close down lanes and all decks have counters.

If you keep losing for the same reason you should be trying to build a better deck that can negate this.

fair that many cards can shut down a lane true, but the locations doing that as well making it impossible to make this deck conistent, normally i dont care much for location lock since usually my deck has got reach, my only problem would be prof X but he's fine since hes a 5 cost card and usually i know where they gonna play it. But to get back on topic i feel that having counters is fine but whats wrong with making it a turn instead of a persistent effect ?

[Taonath]

My point of view on this topic very much depends on if he was supporting or disrupting me in my last game.

[Alcatraz]

Originally posted by VastGirth:

Originally posted by Fuho:

i mean again. he out right kills some decks now, i was forced to RETREAT many a game because the location got closed off and he played a cosmo on the remaining one. i mean just make it a turn instead of forever that wouldnt out right kill the card just like spiderman who prevents you from playing cards there for a turn

Many cards have the ability to close down lanes and all decks have counters.

Its like saying Amour should be nerfed because his very strong against destroy decks. Follow that logic and you would need to nerf many many cards.

If you keep losing for the same reason you should be trying to build a better deck that can negate this.

Compare Enchantress and Cosmo. Enchantress blocks only ongoing cards played before on that location, not those added later. Cosmo blocks all on reveal cards, even those added later. And he is even cheaper!

That's why I find Enchantress ok and Cosmo not ok.

[VastGirth]

Originally posted by Alcatraz:

Originally posted by VastGirth:

Many cards have the ability to close down lanes and all decks have counters.

Its like saying Amour should be nerfed because his very strong against destroy decks. Follow that logic and you would need to nerf many many cards.

If you keep losing for the same reason you should be trying to build a better deck that can negate this.

Compare Enchantress and Cosmo. Enchantress blocks only ongoing cards played before on that location, not those added later. Cosmo blocks all on reveal cards, even those added later. And he is even cheaper!

That's why I find Enchantress ok and Cosmo not ok.

Because of those limitations Enchantress is only rarely useful and probably a bit under-powered. She should block all ongoing cards in that lane on an ongoing basis :).

How about instead of a nerf they introduced a card that countered the cosmo counter?

[Alcatraz]

Originally posted by VastGirth:

Originally posted by Alcatraz:

Compare Enchantress and Cosmo. Enchantress blocks only ongoing cards played before on that location, not those added later. Cosmo blocks all on reveal cards, even those added later. And he is even cheaper!

That's why I find Enchantress ok and Cosmo not ok.

Because of those limitations Enchantress is only rarely useful and probably a bit under-powered. She should block all ongoing cards in that lane on an ongoing basis :).

How about instead of a nerf they introduced a card that countered the cosmo counter?

I find nerfing easier to implement. :)

[Z]

Originally posted by Fuho:

Question

I've seen this spacedog more then i can count he fits in to allot of decks and is just good tech, maybe TOO good.

He's a 3/3 with an ongoing effect that stops onreveals. now most decks have on-reveal cards ( hela, patriot, cerebro, even ongoing itself has on-reveals).

so my question is should such a card be Cheap to play? should such a card be 3-3 and not like 3-1 or 3-0, im thinking this because a few other cards that are tech based dont have a favorable statline - shang-chi is a 4-3 enchantress is 4-4 wich is the other one thats pretty good for the stats but not AS annoying as cosmo is. Rogue is a 3-1 and steals an ability i would like to see cosmo fit more along the lines of paying for the cost to Tech on-reveals.

the other change i could see them add is not make it ongoing, make it stop on-reveals for a turn that be decent enough for a 3-3 statline and that way you are not just boned for playing on-reveal decks for the remainder of that location

what are your toughts? do you think my assesment is fair here?

im trying to think ways of being less angry when voicing my opinions and discomfort about the game

Nope if you are playing On-Going.

[Hikiko0mori]

Originally posted by Z:

Originally posted by Fuho:

Question

I've seen this spacedog more then i can count he fits in to allot of decks and is just good tech, maybe TOO good.

He's a 3/3 with an ongoing effect that stops onreveals. now most decks have on-reveal cards ( hela, patriot, cerebro, even ongoing itself has on-reveals).

so my question is should such a card be Cheap to play? should such a card be 3-3 and not like 3-1 or 3-0, im thinking this because a few other cards that are tech based dont have a favorable statline - shang-chi is a 4-3 enchantress is 4-4 wich is the other one thats pretty good for the stats but not AS annoying as cosmo is. Rogue is a 3-1 and steals an ability i would like to see cosmo fit more along the lines of paying for the cost to Tech on-reveals.

the other change i could see them add is not make it ongoing, make it stop on-reveals for a turn that be decent enough for a 3-3 statline and that way you are not just boned for playing on-reveal decks for the remainder of that location

what are your toughts? do you think my assesment is fair here?

im trying to think ways of being less angry when voicing my opinions and discomfort about the game

Nope if you are playing On-Going.

theres deffinetly on-reveal in on-going decks Spectrum/Destroyer etc

[Cujo999]

Originally posted by VastGirth:

Originally posted by Fuho:

i mean again. he out right kills some decks now, i was forced to RETREAT many a game because the location got closed off and he played a cosmo on the remaining one. i mean just make it a turn instead of forever that wouldnt out right kill the card just like spiderman who prevents you from playing cards there for a turn

Many cards have the ability to close down lanes and all decks have counters.

Its like saying Amour should be nerfed because his very strong against destroy decks. Follow that logic and you would need to nerf many many cards.

If you keep losing for the same reason you should be trying to build a better deck that can negate this.

Armor is very overtuned for what she does.

You can use her to build your own combos.

You can use her to shut down your opponent's combos.

You can use her to counter certain unfavorable locations.

She only has one counter, as Rogue is ineffective against her ability.

With all that utility, she still has a good 2/3 statline.

Armor should be a 2/0 or 2/1 for what she does. There's a reason why it's one of the Top 5 most seen cards in Pool 3+.

[Hikiko0mori]

Originally posted by Cujo999:

Originally posted by VastGirth:

Many cards have the ability to close down lanes and all decks have counters.

Its like saying Amour should be nerfed because his very strong against destroy decks. Follow that logic and you would need to nerf many many cards.

If you keep losing for the same reason you should be trying to build a better deck that can negate this.

Armor is very overtuned for what she does.

You can use her to build your own combos.

You can use her to shut down your opponent's combos.

You can use her to counter certain unfavorable locations.

She only has one counter, as Rogue is ineffective against her ability.

With all that utility, she still has a good 2/3 statline.

Armor should be a 2/0 or 2/1 for what she does. There's a reason why it's one of the Top 5 most seen cards in Pool 3+.

armor deffinetly fits that same idea yeah, but armor doesnt out right kill cards , its annoying for a destroy archetype but thats one archetype cosmo just stumps more then just 1 deck-type armor is also deffinetly more just destroy decks suck against it

[Wipkonijntje]

i don't see any reason to nerf Cosmo unless u wanna face wong/negative surfer every single game.

first of all i whould wanna see a nerf to discard decks cause they have no counter.
yes, cosmo counters the discard effect but those decks don't care about cosmo cause they don't need to commit to 1 lane, they just start playing in another lane when cosmo pops.