Card removal

[MoistSpookyWater]

Should I take card removal when I can buy it? In the start of the game it says loost 50% of your health and remove 2 cards was that worth it? also should I remove like strikes in shops?

[Jeff]

Card removal is almost always helpful. It is good to remove either a strike or defend if given the option.

The 50% health cost at the start is situational.

Depends on what your class is, what the other options are, the map, your goal (ascension, points, or sure survival)

If ironclad, I would say its usually a decent option because you can heal some of it back. Might not be the best if you are targetting a path with an early elite.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

You simply need to be logical about it. Losing 50% of your HP as the Silent is really stupid unless you can see a campfire on your map very early on to recouperate. As the Ironclad not such a big deal since if you play your cards right you should be gaining HP from fight to fight instead.

The rest of the time it really depend upon if you have a card or a set of cards you want to see cycled as fast as possible in your deck. Basic strikes and defends are the less bang for your bucks (so to speak) in the game so it is almost always useful to get rid of one.

And of course you need to weight that gain over the gain of whatever, like purchasing a critical card in stock or a relic or whatever...

[Androgynous]

Strikes are pretty much always good to remove, maybe unless your deck revolves around Perfected Strike.

Card removal is almost always beneficial unless you've got the perfect deck but sometimes you find a card in the shop that can be even better.

For example I like to build my Silent around Noxious Fumes and blocking, so if I've already found a couple of good defensive cards early on and Noxious Fumes is in the shop, I may buy it over removing a Strike because I feel that adding it improves my deck more than removing a Strike would.

Or if there's an Apotheosis early on in the shop, especially if the shop is near a campfire I'd probably take it over removing a card.

[Androgynous]

Originally posted by Eagle_of_Fire:

Losing 50% of your HP as the Silent is really stupid unless you can see a campfire on your map very early on to recouperate

Not really. The Ironclad has the HP regen because it's expected to take damage. The Silent has less HP but has better early defensive cards that you can avoid taking damage entirely (and still make progress in fights) in some cases where you wouldn't with Ironclad due to Survivor and/or Neutralize.

Even if I took the HP loss and did happen upon an early campfire the first thing I would do is upgrade Neutralise - or Dexterity / Leg Sweep if I'm fortunate enough to get it early - because in the long run it's going to prevent more damage than the HP healed from one campfire rest. Doesn't matter if you're at half HP or 1 HP if you don't take damage from fights.

Obviously there's some risk involved, after all, removing 2 cards is a huge advantage that needs some trade off, but it's not as bad of a decision as you make it out to be.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

I kind of agree but removing two cards as the Silent is nuts if you compare it to upgrading a Neutralize early. If you get your hp low you'll need to rest at the first campfire...

[MoistSpookyWater]

What do people think of corruption? I got it from a transmorph(what ever its called)

[Eagle_of_Fire]

Can be very powerful if you only have 3 energy... But of course if you're running a slow defense oriented deck it will mean you destroy your only mean of defending yourself. As the Silent it is the last thing you want to do because it will make you take a lot of hits for no reason.

Usually that card shine in an Ironclad stick deck. The Ironclad have a lot of cards which exhaust other cards.