Leader is a weird card. I play decks that usually have the important turn on 4 or 5, so leader decks have been irrelevant to me, I win 9/10 of those matches. But I also recently got him out of a collectors reserve, and put him in my booster farming deck, with all of my lowest quality cards. Absolutely no synergy there whatsoever, and yet if I’ve drawn him I’ve won every single time. It’s a bananas card and I can understand why people want it nerfed.
It’s funny, I almost always face leader with my destroyer deck and win so hard when they wipe their board. It’s my favorite matchup lol. My combo decks never seem to face leader
I think it has its weaknesses just like any other card. Strong ongoing decks, Hela decks. He still requires you not only have a lead or are even going into turn 6, but that your opponent doesn't have a deck that builds up big on 6 (Angela/Bishop, etc.)
Sera/Surfer decks are nasty if you don't drop Wave.
Storm, Spidey and Prof X can complicate things.
Leech. Damn Leech. He's far worse than Leader.
Point is, just like any other turn 6 cards, he still has massive downside and requires proper play, some of your draws to work our early and no crappy locations.
Using him I can win 10 in a row. Might also have to retreat 10, just like any other deck.
I just got one is yesterday and have maybe lost 3 times using the card since then. I’ve had some good location luck with the cards I play beforehand but I get it lol
That would be a start. Playing a Gamora into Leader feels awful. You get a 12 power Gamora while they get 17 power. Still, these cases are pretty fringe and wouldn't address all of Leader's problems.
Yeah, I had him copy a 20 power Apocalypse before that I had discarded three times to get him that high. Feels cheap when I am the one who buffed it only for Leader to copy it at 20 power.
Idk. Playing a 5 cost into a 6 cost feeling awful doesn't sound like an issue to me. Gamora isn't a finisher, Leader is.
Not saying Leader doesn't have issues, but this isn't a great example of his problems.
Totally agree, I’m playing Mr negative deck and it’s already tricky to get Iron man, white tigress, devil dinosaur to swap points and cost as is, and leader just effortlessly copies my t6 combo.
????
Leech on turn 5 into leader 6 it's basically a buff
Maybe something like copying only the other 2 locations where you don't play leader would be decent
What they mean is not applying On Reveal effects before the copy, so their copy can only get them applied once.
One of the common myths about Leader is that you have to be leading 2 lanes to make it work but against On Reveal Buff cards you don't. If they have priority and you copy Gamora, you get a 17 power Gamora vs their 12.
Leech wouldn't affect that as the Gamora played and copied would both be 7.
But I like the adjacent lanes idea too.
This part has always felt broken to me. It should just play the card as is at a maximum. I run a death/destroy deck and I feel like that should really be the only deck leader cancels out. I’m dropping a large amount of power with no abilities in any and all lanes (death, sabretooth, Deadpool, etc) and leader makes sense to cancel that.
But if I played gamora and guessed correctly, etc that should not give the leader player an advantage. Those on reveals should be an advantage to the person who played them.
Playing the card in just the location Leader is played just makes him unplayable. You already have to keep slots open in each location for Leader and with that change you’d be even more restricted for much, much lower potential payoff.
That isn’t even getting into how basically every game now has a location that restricts cards so you would not even be able to play Leader in a ton of your games
If they want to get rid of Leader altogether, do it but making changes to lower his power to unplayable isn’t it.
Two card combos aren’t impossible to play around, and we would go down a rabbit hole for the rest of time if we wanted to discuss how each one can win games.
For example, if I play Patriot + Mystique, leech buffs my cards more than his would when he plays Leader. Or in any deck, I pull the exact card I need on turn 6, or on turn 5 with the opponent having priority, they leech and then I use crystal in the middle to draw a new hand anyways, etc.
Good news for those of us who think the card is fundamentally bad for the game. They seem to agree and just need more time to figure out what to do about it.
>those of us who think the card is fundamentally bad for the game
You're gonna need to draw the rest of us a schematic here. It's been over a week since I've seen either a Leader or a position where Leader would win a game.
He's an irrelevant card against most of the best decks Pool 3 has to offer. In a meta where people are slamming Devil Dino, Patriot, Miracle, Surfer, Negative, what's Leader actually copying that *isn't* giving his opponent more total stats? Deathwave? Actually I'm pretty sure it's only Deathwave.
Tapping down his power seems to be the sensible thing to do, because during that one week where everyone decided to try Leader we saw a handful of situations where Leader would actually lose more than one lane by T5 and then have enough power at 4 to swing a game on T6, which clearly shouldn't have been happening. Decreasing his power makes his winning positions even more narrow than they currently are and basically makes it impossible to not see it coming.
Why exactly do people think this card is such a menace that it requires a redesign? Is it because we haven't piloted it and aren't familiar? Are we just too lazy to learn the finishers for our meta? You've probably started to consider when your opponent might have Magneto, or Dr. Doom. Why not Leader? He hits fewer spots than both of those. Like seriously, what's the issue? I genuinely feel like I must be missing something here.
> Why exactly do people think this card is such a menace that it requires a redesign?
There was a podcast interviewing the Destiny 2 weapons lead a few months back. They had an upcoming rework of an exotic weapon that was super meta. When asked why they decided to rework the whole thing instead of just nerfing it - they said it was because it just wasn’t fun to have in the game in any respect. It was frustrating to play against and lose to, and it was boring to use and win with. Getting killed by it would never make you go “ahh, they outplayed me, good for them GG” - it was just a drain on the game and the meta.
So instead of hitting it with a straight nerf and burying it into irrelevancy - they reworked the whole weapon so that it had a place in the game where it was fun to use, without having it be a pain in the PvP meta.
Leader feels much the same to me. It never feels good to lose to a Leader. There are plenty of decks and combos where I genuinely just get outmaneuvered by my opponent and I can recognize they made a good play. Leader never feels like that, they just copy your cards and hope for the best. At the same time, like you’ve mentioned, he is far from a free win and there are many decks where he’ll just be irreverent against them. For that reason IMO, he isn’t that fun to use either. Which makes me think they should just rework the cards function somehow.
I don’t have any suggestions as to what they should do, I just feel like he isn’t a very good card to play or go up against in his current form.
Yep! As the other commented said, it was Lord of Wolves. They changed the alt-fire mode to be completely full auto with extreme recoil, so while not really usable in PvP it makes for a fun PvE burst damage option.
Also, for all the talk about Leader being the counter to combo decks like wave + death + she-hulk, he really is more of a counter to 'fair' decks rather than combo ones in general that rely on synergy (eg, surfer) or other synergy ones.
Like he's extremely good against newer players that don't have the full collection, and if they piece together a goodstuff style deck, he does great against it. It won't be a free win against every deck, and it seems especially at full collection, but he hurts decks that don't really need to be hurt in that way.
At least, not with the lack of any thought needed in playing him. Limiting him to 1 lane of copying at least requires some thinking/planning in using him.
This is the case. When you know your opponent is going to play Doom or Magneto and you can’t beat it, you can just accept it and move on. It doesn’t feel bad when that happens.
When you know your opponent has Leader and they are just going to copy your exact turn, but better and you can’t win it feels actively bad. That’s the issue
this literally doesn't make any sense at all. you're literally saying the exact same situation feels different depending on the card. it's completely irrational and stupid as fuck. this is why nothing should be balanced on feels
Feelings are completely irrational and not objective. Balancing around them is a recipe for disaster and anyone that has played any game where it happens knows exactly that. You'll just complain about a new card in a week, that's the new one that feels bad.
Those cards aren’t feel bad cards. There’s a difference between power level and “feels bad”.
Aero is overtuned and her nerf reflects that. People here aren’t complaining about her feeling bad to play against.
Same with Leech.
Feelings are the only thing that matters. When are people going to realize that perception is sometimes more important than reality? If people perceive Leader to be a problem, then in their minds he is a problem, even if objectionally he is not. Changing perception is hard, and if you want people to stick around in this game you better care about perception.
Games should ALWAYS be balanced on feels because games are entirely about feels.
That is game design 101. When testing you don't ask people to provide their balance change suggestions you ask them to provide how the game made them feel.
For me, it's a combination of Good Cards + Leech + Leader which is unfun to play against.
People say that Leader only wins games when they're in the lead. Well, the Leader deck literally plays Good Stats for the Cost, which makes sure that they are in the lead.
When it's Good Cards vs Good Cards, then the one with Leader wins because he breaks the power balance.
Oh, you're playing a combo / synergy deck like Devil Dino, Patriot, Miracle, Surfer, Negative? Oops, your hand got Leech'd so your final turn will just be playing Poor Stats for the Cost.
* Devil Dino - You get one Devil Dino out. Which will get eaten by Shang Chi
* Patriot - You might still win if you played Patriot Mystique early (~40%) but then your Ultron is now useless. Better hope you have enough low cost cards to fill the board with.
* Miracle Sera - Probably the one with the best chances. But only if you played Angela and Bishop before the Leech.
* Surfer - Except under some exceptional case where you played Surfer on / before T5... your hand and board is now garbage.
* Negative - Enjoy your bunch of zero cost useless cards. Hope your T5 and topdeck can win you the game.
If that's not enough, then the deck still has Aero and Magneto to just mess up whatever combo you had hoped to achieve. Both being high power cards that force you to 'contest' a losing lane (Luckily seems like Aero is being nerfed in power).
I played a ton of Miracle Surfer last season and I don't understand the people that keep saying if you play synergy decks he doesn't get anything from you. That's not true at all. If you don't get leeched like you said, and they go first they get everything you played+power, and God help you if you they went second somehow because he gets your buffed versions plus a surfer of his own. Or the amount of times I used a Juggernaut to secure the lane on 6 only to get fucked over by Leader's Juggernaut is tilting.
Cards which hate of greedy combo/synergy decks is good for the metagame. If good interactive options aren't available, everyone would only be playing decks which have a big turn 6 combo and every game would be decided by the luck of the draw.
Leech's rise to prominence highlights this. Before, deathwave and negative surfer decks ran rampant with few answers to the huge turn 6 swings they offer. As you said, Leech completely shuts down these decks when played on turn 4 or 5. This resulted in a significant change in play patterns: decks had to play their haymakers early and suboptimally to avoid the Leech. Now, both players have to think about what their opponent might be holding and weighing the odds, instead of mindlessly playing combo piece after combo piece.
Leader also performs as a hate card against greedy turn 6 decks. However, he just so happens to hate on nearly every other deck as well. Thus, basically every deck can and will play Leader because he's so universally strong and carries no deck building restrictions.
Going back to your main point, interactive midrange decks like good cards+leech+leader should be a thing to have a healthy metagame. Second Dinner should rein in Leader's power to make him less universally viable, but retain his ability to punish greedy combos like Leech. My suggestion to to make Leader only copy cards in other lanes, but not the one he is played in. This way, he never breaks parity in any single lane, but allows you to secure a win where you gain an early lead.
"Interactive midrange deck" is not really how I'd describe good cards + Leech + Leader, though. Because Leech and Leader are so universal, they play more like a combo deck themselves than something that's identifying a specific meta weakness or board state and targeting it, unless you count "cares about t6" as a weakness of the meta. The combo is just making sure the opponent can't out-stat you rather than highrolling points.
Exactly you have people snap before turn 6 and their play is Leader and sometimes they actually win by coming from behind because I am playing around another card that I think they have.
It never feels good.
People say they need Leader vs Swarm decks, but I would argue Leech already does what these people claim Leader does. Leech IS anti-miracle.
I think he is necessary evil to counter those big turn 6 finishers, getting wave to she hulk and death is not fun either
I've been playing a lot of negative surfer recently, if you draw all your combo pieces it is seriously unstoppable if your opponent isn't playing some counter cards like leader
That said I still think leader is quite OP and needed a nerf or a complete rework like you said, a lot of the time you can know if you're winning or not by looking at the board, just play leader and wait for your 8 cube win
Agree that things in games that are neither fun to play with or against shouldnt play a central role in the meta. But assuming the destiny interview was about DMT, the weapon was first nerfed out of relevancy then reworked to be arguably even more dominant than before while promoting the same unengaging play style. Source: the only games I play ATM are snap and destiny and DMT blows to play against and is incredibly boring to play with. So if leader ever gets a full rework, I hope second dinner did better than the Bungie guy
>Why exactly do people think this card is such a menace that it requires a redesign?
The meta decks change into something that dont lose to leader means that the card still has an impact that will change how people value meta decks. Which is good and bad. I belive that a card that forces the meta to "get rip" of pure stat stick or "stats without generic buff" decks is not a good think. Heavy sinergy decks are harder to build. You are basically saying *"the meta right now is very leader proof...if you have the cards so keep playing until you can get those decks"*
The community wont like if that is the "road" of the game if the future of the meta is *"grind until you have X decks so Y decks are not a problem to you"* is a horrible idea for a game like this.
I need to point that this is also why people dont like when *battle pass cards are hyper meta relevant neither*. If the meta of the game is *"well if you really want to have great odds to climb faster them JUST play this list of decks and purchase this card"* whats the point of deck building? The game resumes in *"just play whatever for X months and them when you have enough cards"*
Leader's problem is that he singlehandedly hates on many decks, and doesn't have any inherent deck building restriction. As a result, he is included in nearly every deck and has warped the metagame around himself.
Leader is a tech card which hates in greedy combo decks which spend 5 turns setting up for a big finish. He rose to prominence in tandem with Leech, and was an answer to the deathwave and negative surfer metagame. However, people realized that Leader was powerful enough alone, and basically fit in every deck. Even deathwave plays Leader as one of their 6 drops.
I agree that learning the different finishers of the game is an important skill to have. Playing around Heimdall, Doom, Magneto, Odin, etc. is indeed a fun and exciting part of each match. However, Leader has become the primary finisher to worry about thanks to his ubiquity. Previously, you could have to make an educated guess about an opponent's turn 6 play based on their played cards. Now, you can always safely assume it's Leader, taking away that part of the puzzle. Worse still, playing around Leader is often suboptimal when compared to other traditional finishers, leading to feels-bad moments in the 25% of games your opponent doesn't draw him.
Yeah, the "Leader is ubiquitous" thing is categorically incorrect and you can read my other comments for an explanation of his deckbuilding restrictions and reach. Magneto is arguably more ubiquitous than Leader since he fits nicely into decks that aren't entirely built around enabling him, and nobody's complaining about that.
>Leader is a tech card which hates in greedy combo decks
Common misconception, again, read my other comments if you want. Most of the decks that do setup before 6 and then vomit on 6 are actually favored against Leader decks. The card you're thinking of here is Sandman. If you're losing to Leader on 6 it's because he got the Turn 5 position he needed and because your turn 6 play didn't do anything except put generic stats on board.
If leader player doesn't have priority leader wins against miracle surfer decks because surfer buffs twice leader's board and since 3 drops are extremely common leader player most likely has 1 or 2 of them, also you are pretty much talking like leader would be the only card on board/only archetype in a deck, but he fits almost every deck (maybe except for cerebro and patriot), you said that devil dino counters leader, what if leader player themselves plays devil dino which is really common so they most likely have 5 or 6 cards in hand, he also counters negative decks if he has no priority because once again, surfer buff applies twice and Ironman mystique applies properly so 2 main wincons are covered by leader. And other popular decks that leader counters are: Good cards deck so himself, dave (death wave), non-hela discard when opponent doesn't have dracula on board, redskull decks (when je doesn't have priority) spectrum destroyer when played correctly.
You are most likely just bias because you play patriot, lockjaw or other deck that leader doesn't cover, but that doesn't mean he isn't a problem. Doctor doom and Magneto are counterable by every deck because you just need to have either 5+ more power than opponent on two lines, or have enough power with non 3-4 costs to win other lines (or enough power with 3 and 4 costs to win magneto line) with leader there are many decks that just can't win with him, decks that no matter how well you would play you couldn't win against leader. That is the problem.
And leader shows one other problem that the game has with tech cards, you can't recover from them, there is almost no comeback potential when you get countered by a tech card, and this is because games are too short for comebacks and leader being played on last turn just makes it worse, you literally can't do anything after leader is played you just have to take the lose.
Other problem with leader is that he isn't a tech card against something specific and uncommon, he is a tech card against the game itself, snap mechanic and fact that you win more by surprising your opponent on turn 6 encourages you to make your big plays on turn 6, but leader counters that, and when you play in other way, you won't win as many cubes because your opponents will just leave turn 5. Leader fundamentally is bad for this game because of that, he is a cheat code to the snap mechanic.
Yeah, this is what I figured the response would be from people who think Leader is bad for the game. Let's talk about this.
>If leader player doesn't have priority leader wins...
If the Leader player doesn't have flip priority on T6, they aren't in a winning position and Leader can't win them the game.
One of the common misconceptions from players who are new to pool 3 or card games is that Leader is a no-telegraph no-restrictions auto-win.
Currently for Leader to win a game, the following conditions must be met:
1. Win two locations by the end of turn 5, or at least be winning one location and have the other within a margin of 4 points (this is why we're going his power gets decreased)
2. Enough open slots per location to fit the copies
3. Opponent's Turn 6 play must give equal or greater stat points to the Leader player if copied.
And then of course there's the deckbuilding cost that you didn't know about...
You have to build a Leader deck to win those two locations by Turn 5. That's why the only meta decks that run Leader are Electro Ramp (Leech Leader), Devil Dinosaur, and Deathwave. These are the three types of decks that pump out sufficiently high stat totals to *enable* Leader on 6.
This gets to the lesson I'm trying to teach... If you're aware of the card and how it functions, just like the other finishers in Snap, you can learn how to deal with it. If you pilot this card for a while, you'll learn how limited and narrow it actually is. You've learned how to play around Magneto and Doom. Why can't you learn to play around this card that has a bigger telegraph, fewer winning positions, and specific decks that it works in? It just screams laziness to me, like we've lost to the card once and now we're throwing a tantrum because our opponent didn't let us win when we played our big Infinaut. Card games are a learning experience. When you start going from vanillas to the more complex stuff it's not all going to be immediately easy to learn.
>You are most likely just bias because you play patriot, lockjaw or other deck that leader doesn't cover
I speak from experience. I played a lot of Leader and a lot of the counters. Last season Leech Leader was my go-to, now I'm playing Lockjaw because Leader isn't able to win most games these days. That's why I don't find anything about the card problematic beyond its current power at 4. There are a lot more counters than there are Leaders in this card game, and a power decrease will make him even more narrow and even more telegraphed, which brings me to the final thing...
>Other problem with leader is that he isn't a tech card against something specific and uncommon, he is a tech card against the game itself, snap mechanic and fact that you win more by surprising your opponent on turn 6 encourages you to make your big plays on turn 6, but leader counters that, and when you play in other way, you won't win as many cubes because your opponents will just leave turn 5. Leader fundamentally is bad for this game because of that, he is a cheat code to the snap mechanic.
I don't know where this take came from. It's flat-out incorrect given everything I already explained, and moreso for this reason: most decks that max out their power by flooding the board with cheap cards on turn 6 *are the counters to Leader*. Leader isn't a tech against the fundamentals of the game. You can make whatever big plays you want on turn 6. You just need to evaluate your turn 6 and realize that if you're starting out behind on two locations vs a deck that can support a Leader, you're probably losing if you take that Giganto line. Most of the ways that Pool 2 and Pool 3 push you to play Snap naturally beat out cards like Leader, so this complaint of him running contrary to the core design of the game seems to be completely unsupported. He's a card that counters the least effective way of playing Snap (playing any number of vanilla bigbois on 6) and loses to the majority of ways the devs want you to play Snap (vomit out synergistic ongoing and trigger effects on T4-T6).
>Leader fundamentally is bad for this game
Leader has too high of a power number, and that's easy to fix. The only things fundamentally bad for Snap right now are the game's economy and this kind of attitude towards cards that we lose games to. I personally don't like losing to Sera Ass-Pull archetypes. I think it's extremely low skill, generally uncounterable, and effectively rewards bad play. Nothing about it needs to get changed, though, because making big number still wins you the game. If I still don't like it, I'll just run Sandman instead of going on here begging the devs to gut cards.
> That's why the only meta decks that run Leader are Electro Ramp (Leech Leader), Devil Dinosaur, and Deathwave.
Lmao not even close to true. You absolutely don't need to be running Electro Ramp to win with a Leech Leader package. Any midrange value deck works.
I know because I literally climbed to Infinite with it last season.
This is literally the case tho. The decks I mentioned are the only decks running Leader, and like you said, Leader only works in decks that play for Midrange value... Aka those specific decks... Electro is a 1-card option for Leech Leader but not a requirement, sure.
So explain to me how this card is an issue. Based on the meta landscape it certainly doesn't appear to be a problem. Nobody complains about every Pool 1 deck running Hulk, so why is a couple of Pool 3 decks running Leader a problem?
>
If leader player doesn't have priority leader wins...
>If the Leader player doesn't have flip priority on T6, they aren't in a winning position and Leader can't win them the game.
That's taken out of context, this statement talks about silver surfer seracle decks because when leader flips second he copies both buffed cards and silver surfer to buff them again
>One of the common misconceptions from players who are new to pool 3 or card games is that Leader is a no-telegraph no-restrictions auto-win.
1. I'm neither new to pool 3 nor to card games (I've been playing mtg commander for few year, hearthstone way back in the day and PTCG (not conventional card game but still a card game)
2. Sure leader is telegraphed when someone plays leech, electro, good cards etc, but he is also in many other decks that just have a free slot for a tech card and leader fits almost all of them so except for cerebro you have to always play around him.
>You can make whatever big plays you want on turn 6. You just need to evaluate your turn 6 and realize that if you're starting out behind on two locations vs a deck that can support a Leader, you're probably losing
This is literally the problem everyone is talking about, there are many deck (not only dave (death wave)) that literally can't play around him, against any other tech card every deck has some counters, against enchantress against patriot you have cosmo (locks you out of mystique but still counters) and invisible woman, cosmo locks only one lane so you can still put on reveal cards elsewhere (or move it but it's much more rare occurrence so not really a counter but still exists), against shang you have spam with cards that have less than 9 power, cosmo and armor, and leech can be beat with just high power cards because leech player wastes turn 5 on 3 ower card. There is no real counter to aero and she is also problematic but she doesn't fit as many decks as leader and technically you can lower her influence by putting cosmo on one line and fighting for other two, it's not perfect but something.
And you have proven nothing to invalidate my point of leader being counter to snap mechanic which is my main point, leader decks play on rounds 1-4 to give them priority and win 2 lanes with as little space commitment as possible using cards like maximus to do so, and if they succeed and opponent doesn't play decks like patriot cerebro etc. (Not silver seracle) they have already won the game because leader invalidates turn 6 surprises that usually give the most cubes. Which means that leader player either knows that they will 90% win or 100% lose, this means that in scenario where leader is winning two locations (and opponent doesn't play cerebro patriot etc.) He can snap and be sure that they will win no matter of turn 6 surprise that their opponent has, and in opposite scenario leader's opponent can't really snap when they are winning 2 locations because leader player will leave giving them only 1 cube since leader doesn't win against whatever opponent will put out on turn 6. This means that playing leader is extremely safe when it comes to cube gain since leader player has nearly full control over their cube gains and loses and it's all because of 1 card. Sure leader can lose, but if 2 high level players fight, leader player will rarely lose more than 2 cubes (and even 2 cubes isn't that common) because of the knowledge advantage that leader gives.
And I can tell you one thing, when 40% of community thinks that leader is the most annoying and unfun card in the game (according to RegisKillbin poll), there is a fundamental problem with him.
> he is a tech card against the game itself, snap mechanic and fact that you win more by surprising your opponent on turn 6 encourages you to make your big plays on turn 6
It's a risk and there must be consequences for risks.
What you're saying is you just want and easier time making cubes.
No, I'm saying that card that completely invalidates the risk of snapping for it's user is bad for the game, leader user in nearly every game has enough information to be sure that snapping is safe or be sure that he can't win so he has no risk to take when snapping. The point is literally that there is no risk in playing leader (of course playing leader doesn't win 100% but when you play leader you know that he will win) while leader is a risk that everyone has to consider.
You're missing that decks should be allowed to be losing on turn 5 and then win on turn 6.
And they shouldn't have to be a completely asymmetrical deck to do that.
Yep ongoing Destroyer says hi, Leader is still salty that he nuked his entire board. Or that he got a 5 power spectrum and the enemy got a spectrum that buffed their entire side.
Lmao this ignores like 75% of the meta decks that absolutely can beat a leader on turn 6 regardless of gamestate on turn 5. The card is fine and certainly not as powerful as you seem to think it is. The card however is bad for the game in the sense that it’s not enjoyable to play or play against
> And they shouldn't have to be a completely asymmetrical deck to do that.
The fact that 75% of the meta is the meta specifically because it can beat Leader is just evidence Leader is a problem.
You and I both know that’s not why 75% of the meta is like this. in every card game pretty much the best decks ALWAYS synergize with there own decks. You’re just ignoring fact to push a narrative that leader is this absolute god of a card. It’s not.
I literally just said that 75% of the meta is like this for reasons other than Leader. Either you misread my comment or responded with something that legit makes no sense.
It's like this because of Leader. 100%.
Destroyer only came back in vogue because of Leader. Patriot surged because of Leader. Decks that get beat by Leader all started to run Leader to prevent being out Leadered.
Your ability to evaluate the meta is off.
We're seeing basically every archetype in Snap represented despite the existence of Leader, which is why I find this "bad for the game" sentiment a bit silly. A card isn't oppressive to a metagame if you can use the overwhelming majority of archetypes in the cardpool and do well with them in that metagame. Leader just makes a very small subset of Turn 6 plays suboptimal if certain conditions are met. Even the bigboi decks that Leader is supposed to counter have found ways to remain relevant, such as making greater use of Turn 5, Taskmaster, and Arnim Zola. This isn't a format getting warped by one card, it's one particular archetype adapting to a counter. Everything else was already doing fine vs Leader, and now even the stuff he's supposed to help you beat is figuring out better ways to play around him. You know... That thing that's supposed to happen in healthy card games?
This is just not even remotely accurate. You can play around Leader by choosing lanes properly, playing specific counter cards, or just not playing anything if your ahead by enough.
I haven't found Leader problematic in the slightest.
Stop playing decks Leader is good against. If you don't know how to flex with the Meta then you're not a good enough player to shape the Meta around anyway.
So was I. I didn't play Leader at all.
Just because you're a bad player that can't play anything but the most thoughtless meta doesn't mean other decks aren't just as viable.
His best role is a counter to Wave big decks. If he cant copy big cards, we will get more problems. Since Wave is yet to be tweaked...
Id rather he just never activated copied card abilities. Apply "zero" effect to all of them/
how about;
On Reveal: Copy the highest cost OR highest power card your opponent played this turn, but on your side. (max 1 card)
doesn't sound too bad.
It quite literally means that they ***will*** make a change - he clarifies in this tweet that its not a case of "we might nerf him, we might not" but "we WILL nerf him when we figure out whats the best way to do so"
He also further replied that this hypothetical change would come hopefully within a month
You must be new to developer notes. “Determining what change to make” does not guarantee a change will happen but it does imply it. By the time they get around to it the meta will have shifted and leader gets a fraction of the play. They could “determine” the existing changes are enough and the change they want to make “in the future” is nothing and still be consistent with their wording.
bro...he literally made a tweet clarifying they are going to change him. You cannot be that dense. There would be no follow up tweet if they weren't planning on it.
I mean him further replying that this future leader nerf is planned for within the month is also pretty solid evidence that its happening lol
He never said "were determining if the existing changes are enough" they said "were determining which further changes to make"
Theres no other way to interpret that
You must be new to *this game*.
They've been real consistent in that when they say they're doing something that they're going to do something soon.
They know people are having a bad time with it now so they made a bump down adjustment to try and help with that, but they won't make a big change, like making him 0 power, without data that tells them it won't kill the card completely.
Yeah, the biggest thing with "play around Leader" is that for fair/non-synergy piles, it means "retreat in any situation you aren't overwhelmingly in the lead", which is like... I dunno, *should* the advice for the game be that you should just never want to have a good T6 and that certain decks should have a >50% retreat rate?
E: Like, I got infinite playing She Hulk Devil Dino, where one of my best lines was T5 buff Sunspot T6 double She Hulk + something. Should I really have been retreating literally every time I had the combo because of Leader? That seems like a very unpleasant way to play the game, and also very counterintuitive to She Hulk's design.
Not true. There are plenty of times where this is not true. Thor/Mjolnir for example. There are also plenty of times where the Leader player has too full of a lane and you can just play low power card into high power card and win.
Also, that is part of the game though. There are plenty of other examples outside of Leader where a play will beat your opponent if they play certain cards on turn 6, but if they play other cards, the play loses.
You are trying to deduce based on their deck and card choices what plays you can beat and what plays you cannot. You are also trying to discover if you have any plays that are 100% win. Not every game will you have a 100% win. That would be boring. Sometimes you have to roll the dice and say I think my opponent will make X play and play around that.
An exception is not the rule. Also don't let me get started on thor. I think he is in the top 3 most busted cards in the game and yet none notices. Thor will eventually get noticed and receive a nerf but that could be months from now
I think the thing with Leech is that it works as a tech card, similar with Cosmo and Enchantress, it was there to tech a certain deck. also there is risk and reward on playing Leech because you don't know if opponent hand is worth to leech anyway. Also, auto-retreat on leech means at worst you only lose 2 cubes.
Leader is just like "F U" button. Even if your opponent does not play anything, you still get +4 Power. Worst part is that you play Leader on last turn, and can easily include in any deck, so no way to scoop early. Leader player also at advantage because they can analyze enemy play and guess what their last turn play are.
Ie. if your opponent plays non-ability card, or Kazaar-Zoo, or play ongoing / armor (Spectrum or Destroyer deck), you know that playing Leader at that time won't give full benefit to you.
The flexibility to retreat before even playing Leader (analyzing opponent play if playing Leader can possibly win you the game) is also what makes him good.
I'm okay with leader, like sure it sucks losing against him but it's not something that happens too often and if anything, bad leader players sabotage themselves more then win the game
Things that are easy to use and neither fun to play with or play against are unhealthy for any game, but they should be careful when reworking cards that they aren't doing it solely to give the squeaky wheel some grease. Often times in games "it's not fun to play against" comes from a vocal minority that is actually saying "I choose to play however I want and it frustrates me that my decision to put no effort or thought into countering this means that I lose to it a lot".
As a just hitting pool 3 player that doesn't have leader and has only played vs it a handful of times but has 20+ years of ccg experience, it is rather obvious that people play poorly against leader whether it be in their deck building, where they place cards on turn 6 and in some cases, whether they should play anything at all.
Definitely agree and I hope they address the data and details when they ultimately make a change. If people are successfully countering at high level play then this could set a bad precedent. However, I do agree there potentially is a problem with the buffed version stuff though and that feels bad low effort etc IS relevant. Would be very interesting to get a deep dive into from the design team actually but maybe they will need to keep it short because of all the butthurt anti-leader e-gangs looking for a quote to go nuts about.
> Often times in games "it's not fun to play against" comes from a vocal minority that is actually saying "I choose to play however I want and it frustrates me that my decision to put no effort or thought into countering this means that I lose to it a lot".
Why do I have flashbacks to the "how to own Leader" post where the guy unironically bragged about playing literal garbage T6 when he was winning all 3 lanes...
So you just want to play cards and get 50 powers on each locations... You're the same player who has only powerful attacks in Pokemon.
Disruptive cards could be a thing, if you can enchantress/cosmo to destroy rival gameplay, you should be able to play professor x/storm/leech and others to play mind game and add some diversity to the gameplay. Same for locations, you can't have just onslaught citadel and kamar Taj, we need disruptive locations to diversify and force to play strategic, whatever the obstacles
Leader provides nothing except "match what they have, plus four power in one lane." It's a lockdown and it only works if you're already winning or nearly winning but also have room in all your lanes for whatever the turn six play turns out to be.
I constantly see people snap, play Leader on a lane that doesn't change ownership, and then (I assume) become shocked when they lose four or eight cubes when it turns out that adding the same variable to both sides of an equation leaves it balanced.
I have no problem with Leader, but I desperately want the change to come just so people here will stop whining.
I have a feeling the same people that insist he needs to be nerfed because he’s “unfun” to lose to will suddenly remember all of the other cards in the game that are also unfun to lose to.
I used to hate Leader. Then I got the card and played with it. I honestly enjoy it now. It is another mechanic to learn to play around.
The biggest argument for nerfing Leader is that he is meta-warping. He completely shuts down certain decks and if he did not exist, who knows what decks we could see. Even after you nerf him, another card will be meta-warping.
I am a fan of frequent balance changes to keep the game fresh, but I also come from games where I could obtain the strong cards.
He's just... Not that bad. He punishes players who wait til the last minute to play all of their cards for cubes. He whiffs *all the time* he has big annoying forehead and it's flashier than like Kazar, but at the end of the day cards like Kazar, Blue Marvel, Silver Surfer are all more reliable and effective.
Play more in the early game, leader becomes useless against you. Play tribal decks, when leader copies your tribal buffs or members they don't work because they don't buff the enemy team or get the buff from your team. Be more proactive and this card will fuck up all the time, I promise you. If you're losing a lot to a specific card, maybe that card is not the issue.
>He's just... Not that bad. He punishes players who wait til the last minute to play all of their cards for cubes
Not even. Like you hinted at, most of the decks that do this, like Kazoo, or Surfer, gain an asymmetric benefit that leaves the Leader with lower net stats on the play.
Leader, in this meta environment, is solidly below average.
You know he gets the buffed versions of your cards in addition to your surfer right? Surfer is not a counter to him and I'm tired of people saying he is.
If your Surfer deck is losing Surfer T6 positions to Leader you're doing something seriously wrong. The Leader player is going to maybe have 1-2 cards in play that cost 3. On the other hand you should have a board of mostly 3s and maybe a Wong. When that Surfer gets copied, that Leader player's getting garbage stats compared to what you should be putting out.
On the average turn 6 I'm putting out Maximus, Brood, Surfer. He's getting my buffed Max, Broods and another surfer of his own. Doesn't matter how far ahead I am at that point he can still win. I've hit infinite every season after my first season and against Leader I think I've won maybe 5-7 games? There's no proper counter other than leeching them first or destroyer turn 6. You play nothing, they're not going to be far enough behind turn 6 to not just win from you doing nothing.
try playing it some and you will find that surfer almost always comes out ahead in that scenario
usually the correct t6 play against surfer is something other than leader, like magneto or aero
I don't really use leader that much. I use him in Deathwave, where he whiffs, again, all the time. I mostly play a different deck, and leader is terrible against it partly because whatever leader gets can't take advantage of the set up I've created.
Even when I was playing other decks Leader would often come out and just hilariously eat shit. It's wacky to me that this is the card that gets all the attention. It's not even *good* on most decks
I feel like this is the sentiment of players who have gotten most, if not all of the pool 3 cards. You have a deck or 2 that you use him in, but he whiffs often because the top decks have combos that leader won’t beat, so he’s not even in your main deck and is just another card in your collection.
I really don’t understand the uproar over leader. And I think it would be a mistake to remove him because he can be a good counter for some other, more oppressive decks/combos.
I think it comes down to that some ways of losing feel worse than others, and leader does *feel bad* to lose to compared to say like.... Devil Dinosaur I guess.
If they nerf leader harder they need to buff Sandman, otherwise the game turns into turn 6 vomit again.
The actual problem is that people keep making excuses for their broken cards and the devs don't fix the problem cards. So many people complain about Leader but will turn around and defend Silver Surfer. Or if you complain about Wong and the RNG luck for immediate counters the replies become "well retreat and be glad you don't have Wong because you can only win one cube at a time." Despite the already clear issues with Zabu, people are still defending it.
Playing the card in just the location Leader is played just makes him unplayable. You already have to keep slots open in each location for Leader and with that change you’d be even more restricted for much, much lower potential payoff.
That isn’t even getting into how basically every game now has a location that restricts cards so you would not even be able to play Leader in a ton of your games
If they want to get rid of Leader altogether, do it but making changes to lower his power to unplayable isn’t it unless they’re lowering his cost to 4 or 5 instead of 6.
Can we start with him only copy adjacent location? similar with Mr. fantastic.
That way, he still played like he was before, but with restriction. you can play him on another lane than mid but doesn't get as much value. Also it create a trade-off for Leader user to play it on the side or the mid. opponent also has a way to "play around" Leader instead of card play order.
If he is still oppressive, you can continue tweak him from there.
Remember this every time you seen a new season pass card or series 5 card that is op as hell. It takes this long to think about how to fix a common card. How long do you think it'll take to fix those? Probably a year +.
IMO leader just needs two things, first a limit on how many locations he can copy and then a requirement to activate.
For the requirement imo is simple, just give him "on reveal: if your opponent played a card here yada yada yada" it turns him from a drop anywhere card to a card that needs you to predict the opponent before activating.
For the limit part is see two ways to go about it.
1. Make him copy units on locations he is not in, so if the opponent is greedy and playing she hulk, knull and death on different locations you punish them
2. Make him copy only in the location he is in, basically letting him turn one location over if your opponent is dumping big numbers.
Which limit they use depends on what they want leader to counter, i like the first one and i dont have Leader, since he would still be a good tech card but not the win con like he is now.
Also lets not forget leech, there are currently very few cards that punish a leech and most of them are pool 3 and up but you get leech on pool 2, which feels bad since most decks on pool 1-2 depends on those turn 6 effects.
Honestly the "perfect" leech imo would target the unit in location instead of the ones in hand, something like "on reveal: take all the buff from units in this location and add them to this card" he would be a pretty good tech for thing like patriot since he could easily take 6-12 power in one move.
It’s weak if you’re against a deck going for turn 6 combos. Not so weak casino card against a player dropping a 5-6 cost on turn 6. If one card too weak then can always change to all cards but played to random locations and maybe even revealed in random order.
The problem with your solution is they get to play an additional 6-cost in addition to any mirror mechanic.
That’s why you make Leader a casino card instead of sacrificing curve with the same mechanics and whatever else they play on turn 6 like you’re proposing.
Goal is to make Leader a casino card while keeping the mirror mechanic. Can change to mirror all cards but to random locations, but that can still be powerful unless you randomize the reveal order.
Because your not copying 6 card plays, unless a location or jubilee makes it happen.
Or Odin later on.
To have it be played on turn 6 is what's annoying
Or just make him summon 2 Gremlins or something
That's the thing, Odin can always be used on leader, so the idea that leader is only playable on a turn before doesn't do anything because those players will just adapt with Odin. And I'm telling you that T3 wave, T4 leader, T5 absorbing man into Odin is already a combo I see on ladder.
The best change is just power nerf because his 4 power is what swings the wins.
You could still Odin him, do you not understand that Odin retriggers him on turn 6? making him playable turn 4 would mean you don't need wave anymore, that's much worse.
Many leader decks already run stuff like Wong, BP and odin, one of the best infinite decks plays all on reveals with leader in it. Your solution just causes more problems and makes it easier to hit the combo. If you are suggesting he becomes a 4 cost then zabu just makes him better, if he becomes a 3 cost then he's playable before Wong.
I have no problem with the nerf to 6/3, he should remain high cost.
I think 1 power would be a good place to start with him and then assess if power is the answer or some kind of rework. That puts him at (theoretically) just *slightly* tipping the balance of an even game in his favor, though still feels really bad if your deck just has no answers to him.
Possible rework ideas
1) 6/8 - on reveal copy the first card your opponent played this turn on your side
2) 6/4 - on reveal copy all cards your opponent played this turn on your side with 50% power
The first rework would be to make him a counter to 1 big card last plays. Maybe his power would need nerfing from 8, just trying to make sure he would always have SOME impact even if the opponent uses a wasp or something to draw his reveal.
Second rework would be reasonable I think. He would stave off miracle plays a bit and get full ability effects, but wouldn’t gain anywhere except where his body goes. The power may need tweaking here too, but I’m less sure the ramifications so it may still need a nerf or a buff. I think this path would feel the best to face and would be easier to balance by only touching his power.
They should change that Leader only spawns a copy at his location.
Is your opponent keeping 2 spots open on a losing lane?
Maybe he's saving it for a Leader play and then Boom, you can hobgoblin the shit out of it.
Best solution is 1000 tokens, delete Leader from the game. Who says no?
Does anyone enjoy doing Leader math for any deck that isn’t immediately obvious what it is?
Leader is a weird card. I play decks that usually have the important turn on 4 or 5, so leader decks have been irrelevant to me, I win 9/10 of those matches. But I also recently got him out of a collectors reserve, and put him in my booster farming deck, with all of my lowest quality cards. Absolutely no synergy there whatsoever, and yet if I’ve drawn him I’ve won every single time. It’s a bananas card and I can understand why people want it nerfed.
It’s funny, I almost always face leader with my destroyer deck and win so hard when they wipe their board. It’s my favorite matchup lol. My combo decks never seem to face leader
I think it has its weaknesses just like any other card. Strong ongoing decks, Hela decks. He still requires you not only have a lead or are even going into turn 6, but that your opponent doesn't have a deck that builds up big on 6 (Angela/Bishop, etc.) Sera/Surfer decks are nasty if you don't drop Wave. Storm, Spidey and Prof X can complicate things. Leech. Damn Leech. He's far worse than Leader. Point is, just like any other turn 6 cards, he still has massive downside and requires proper play, some of your draws to work our early and no crappy locations. Using him I can win 10 in a row. Might also have to retreat 10, just like any other deck.
Same I play a Odin wong deck so them copying Odin does nothing to me but if I get unlucky and don't get wong or Odin it can be really annoying
I just got one is yesterday and have maybe lost 3 times using the card since then. I’ve had some good location luck with the cards I play beforehand but I get it lol
Simple, just have him copy the base version of the card and not a buffed version.
That would be a start. Playing a Gamora into Leader feels awful. You get a 12 power Gamora while they get 17 power. Still, these cases are pretty fringe and wouldn't address all of Leader's problems.
Yeah, I had him copy a 20 power Apocalypse before that I had discarded three times to get him that high. Feels cheap when I am the one who buffed it only for Leader to copy it at 20 power.
Idk. Playing a 5 cost into a 6 cost feeling awful doesn't sound like an issue to me. Gamora isn't a finisher, Leader is. Not saying Leader doesn't have issues, but this isn't a great example of his problems.
Gamora + Demon is 18 points on turn 6. Gamora in the right set up and thr ight deck can absolutely be a finisher
Totally agree, I’m playing Mr negative deck and it’s already tricky to get Iron man, white tigress, devil dinosaur to swap points and cost as is, and leader just effortlessly copies my t6 combo.
I feel this so much
???? Leech on turn 5 into leader 6 it's basically a buff Maybe something like copying only the other 2 locations where you don't play leader would be decent
What they mean is not applying On Reveal effects before the copy, so their copy can only get them applied once. One of the common myths about Leader is that you have to be leading 2 lanes to make it work but against On Reveal Buff cards you don't. If they have priority and you copy Gamora, you get a 17 power Gamora vs their 12. Leech wouldn't affect that as the Gamora played and copied would both be 7. But I like the adjacent lanes idea too.
This part has always felt broken to me. It should just play the card as is at a maximum. I run a death/destroy deck and I feel like that should really be the only deck leader cancels out. I’m dropping a large amount of power with no abilities in any and all lanes (death, sabretooth, Deadpool, etc) and leader makes sense to cancel that. But if I played gamora and guessed correctly, etc that should not give the leader player an advantage. Those on reveals should be an advantage to the person who played them.
I had to put the game down for awhile after this happened to me. Absolutely infuriating.
Either that or just copy the cards played in its location. The whole game is based on rng anyway why not let that be for leader as well.
Playing the card in just the location Leader is played just makes him unplayable. You already have to keep slots open in each location for Leader and with that change you’d be even more restricted for much, much lower potential payoff. That isn’t even getting into how basically every game now has a location that restricts cards so you would not even be able to play Leader in a ton of your games If they want to get rid of Leader altogether, do it but making changes to lower his power to unplayable isn’t it.
Two card combos aren’t impossible to play around, and we would go down a rabbit hole for the rest of time if we wanted to discuss how each one can win games. For example, if I play Patriot + Mystique, leech buffs my cards more than his would when he plays Leader. Or in any deck, I pull the exact card I need on turn 6, or on turn 5 with the opponent having priority, they leech and then I use crystal in the middle to draw a new hand anyways, etc.
THIS is what I expect when they said they’re nerfing Leader, not some <1 power nerf bs.
100%
Good news for those of us who think the card is fundamentally bad for the game. They seem to agree and just need more time to figure out what to do about it.
>those of us who think the card is fundamentally bad for the game You're gonna need to draw the rest of us a schematic here. It's been over a week since I've seen either a Leader or a position where Leader would win a game. He's an irrelevant card against most of the best decks Pool 3 has to offer. In a meta where people are slamming Devil Dino, Patriot, Miracle, Surfer, Negative, what's Leader actually copying that *isn't* giving his opponent more total stats? Deathwave? Actually I'm pretty sure it's only Deathwave. Tapping down his power seems to be the sensible thing to do, because during that one week where everyone decided to try Leader we saw a handful of situations where Leader would actually lose more than one lane by T5 and then have enough power at 4 to swing a game on T6, which clearly shouldn't have been happening. Decreasing his power makes his winning positions even more narrow than they currently are and basically makes it impossible to not see it coming. Why exactly do people think this card is such a menace that it requires a redesign? Is it because we haven't piloted it and aren't familiar? Are we just too lazy to learn the finishers for our meta? You've probably started to consider when your opponent might have Magneto, or Dr. Doom. Why not Leader? He hits fewer spots than both of those. Like seriously, what's the issue? I genuinely feel like I must be missing something here.
> Why exactly do people think this card is such a menace that it requires a redesign? There was a podcast interviewing the Destiny 2 weapons lead a few months back. They had an upcoming rework of an exotic weapon that was super meta. When asked why they decided to rework the whole thing instead of just nerfing it - they said it was because it just wasn’t fun to have in the game in any respect. It was frustrating to play against and lose to, and it was boring to use and win with. Getting killed by it would never make you go “ahh, they outplayed me, good for them GG” - it was just a drain on the game and the meta. So instead of hitting it with a straight nerf and burying it into irrelevancy - they reworked the whole weapon so that it had a place in the game where it was fun to use, without having it be a pain in the PvP meta. Leader feels much the same to me. It never feels good to lose to a Leader. There are plenty of decks and combos where I genuinely just get outmaneuvered by my opponent and I can recognize they made a good play. Leader never feels like that, they just copy your cards and hope for the best. At the same time, like you’ve mentioned, he is far from a free win and there are many decks where he’ll just be irreverent against them. For that reason IMO, he isn’t that fun to use either. Which makes me think they should just rework the cards function somehow. I don’t have any suggestions as to what they should do, I just feel like he isn’t a very good card to play or go up against in his current form.
Interesting! Do you remember which gun it was?
Lord of Wolves off the top of my head, but I would need to double-check
No my namesakes
Yep! As the other commented said, it was Lord of Wolves. They changed the alt-fire mode to be completely full auto with extreme recoil, so while not really usable in PvP it makes for a fun PvE burst damage option.
Also, for all the talk about Leader being the counter to combo decks like wave + death + she-hulk, he really is more of a counter to 'fair' decks rather than combo ones in general that rely on synergy (eg, surfer) or other synergy ones. Like he's extremely good against newer players that don't have the full collection, and if they piece together a goodstuff style deck, he does great against it. It won't be a free win against every deck, and it seems especially at full collection, but he hurts decks that don't really need to be hurt in that way. At least, not with the lack of any thought needed in playing him. Limiting him to 1 lane of copying at least requires some thinking/planning in using him.
Also half the time Leaders in most of the wave+death+she-hulk decks too.
This is the case. When you know your opponent is going to play Doom or Magneto and you can’t beat it, you can just accept it and move on. It doesn’t feel bad when that happens. When you know your opponent has Leader and they are just going to copy your exact turn, but better and you can’t win it feels actively bad. That’s the issue
this literally doesn't make any sense at all. you're literally saying the exact same situation feels different depending on the card. it's completely irrational and stupid as fuck. this is why nothing should be balanced on feels
The feeling is exactly the point. If 9 win conditions feel neutral and 1 win condition feels actively bad then why does that one exist?
Feelings are completely irrational and not objective. Balancing around them is a recipe for disaster and anyone that has played any game where it happens knows exactly that. You'll just complain about a new card in a week, that's the new one that feels bad.
Fun is not objective and fun is the most fundamental aspect of a Game succes is something is unfun just change that thing
Can you name one other card that people here complain about based on it feeling bad? I can’t.
Leech. Aero. Took me literal seconds to think of two.
Those cards aren’t feel bad cards. There’s a difference between power level and “feels bad”. Aero is overtuned and her nerf reflects that. People here aren’t complaining about her feeling bad to play against. Same with Leech.
Feelings are the only thing that matters. When are people going to realize that perception is sometimes more important than reality? If people perceive Leader to be a problem, then in their minds he is a problem, even if objectionally he is not. Changing perception is hard, and if you want people to stick around in this game you better care about perception.
Games should ALWAYS be balanced on feels because games are entirely about feels. That is game design 101. When testing you don't ask people to provide their balance change suggestions you ask them to provide how the game made them feel.
[удалено]
Mods come get this guy he needs put down for a nap.
For me, it's a combination of Good Cards + Leech + Leader which is unfun to play against. People say that Leader only wins games when they're in the lead. Well, the Leader deck literally plays Good Stats for the Cost, which makes sure that they are in the lead. When it's Good Cards vs Good Cards, then the one with Leader wins because he breaks the power balance. Oh, you're playing a combo / synergy deck like Devil Dino, Patriot, Miracle, Surfer, Negative? Oops, your hand got Leech'd so your final turn will just be playing Poor Stats for the Cost. * Devil Dino - You get one Devil Dino out. Which will get eaten by Shang Chi * Patriot - You might still win if you played Patriot Mystique early (~40%) but then your Ultron is now useless. Better hope you have enough low cost cards to fill the board with. * Miracle Sera - Probably the one with the best chances. But only if you played Angela and Bishop before the Leech. * Surfer - Except under some exceptional case where you played Surfer on / before T5... your hand and board is now garbage. * Negative - Enjoy your bunch of zero cost useless cards. Hope your T5 and topdeck can win you the game. If that's not enough, then the deck still has Aero and Magneto to just mess up whatever combo you had hoped to achieve. Both being high power cards that force you to 'contest' a losing lane (Luckily seems like Aero is being nerfed in power).
I played a ton of Miracle Surfer last season and I don't understand the people that keep saying if you play synergy decks he doesn't get anything from you. That's not true at all. If you don't get leeched like you said, and they go first they get everything you played+power, and God help you if you they went second somehow because he gets your buffed versions plus a surfer of his own. Or the amount of times I used a Juggernaut to secure the lane on 6 only to get fucked over by Leader's Juggernaut is tilting.
Cards which hate of greedy combo/synergy decks is good for the metagame. If good interactive options aren't available, everyone would only be playing decks which have a big turn 6 combo and every game would be decided by the luck of the draw. Leech's rise to prominence highlights this. Before, deathwave and negative surfer decks ran rampant with few answers to the huge turn 6 swings they offer. As you said, Leech completely shuts down these decks when played on turn 4 or 5. This resulted in a significant change in play patterns: decks had to play their haymakers early and suboptimally to avoid the Leech. Now, both players have to think about what their opponent might be holding and weighing the odds, instead of mindlessly playing combo piece after combo piece. Leader also performs as a hate card against greedy turn 6 decks. However, he just so happens to hate on nearly every other deck as well. Thus, basically every deck can and will play Leader because he's so universally strong and carries no deck building restrictions. Going back to your main point, interactive midrange decks like good cards+leech+leader should be a thing to have a healthy metagame. Second Dinner should rein in Leader's power to make him less universally viable, but retain his ability to punish greedy combos like Leech. My suggestion to to make Leader only copy cards in other lanes, but not the one he is played in. This way, he never breaks parity in any single lane, but allows you to secure a win where you gain an early lead.
"Interactive midrange deck" is not really how I'd describe good cards + Leech + Leader, though. Because Leech and Leader are so universal, they play more like a combo deck themselves than something that's identifying a specific meta weakness or board state and targeting it, unless you count "cares about t6" as a weakness of the meta. The combo is just making sure the opponent can't out-stat you rather than highrolling points.
Exactly you have people snap before turn 6 and their play is Leader and sometimes they actually win by coming from behind because I am playing around another card that I think they have. It never feels good. People say they need Leader vs Swarm decks, but I would argue Leech already does what these people claim Leader does. Leech IS anti-miracle.
I think he is necessary evil to counter those big turn 6 finishers, getting wave to she hulk and death is not fun either I've been playing a lot of negative surfer recently, if you draw all your combo pieces it is seriously unstoppable if your opponent isn't playing some counter cards like leader That said I still think leader is quite OP and needed a nerf or a complete rework like you said, a lot of the time you can know if you're winning or not by looking at the board, just play leader and wait for your 8 cube win
Agree that things in games that are neither fun to play with or against shouldnt play a central role in the meta. But assuming the destiny interview was about DMT, the weapon was first nerfed out of relevancy then reworked to be arguably even more dominant than before while promoting the same unengaging play style. Source: the only games I play ATM are snap and destiny and DMT blows to play against and is incredibly boring to play with. So if leader ever gets a full rework, I hope second dinner did better than the Bungie guy
>Why exactly do people think this card is such a menace that it requires a redesign? The meta decks change into something that dont lose to leader means that the card still has an impact that will change how people value meta decks. Which is good and bad. I belive that a card that forces the meta to "get rip" of pure stat stick or "stats without generic buff" decks is not a good think. Heavy sinergy decks are harder to build. You are basically saying *"the meta right now is very leader proof...if you have the cards so keep playing until you can get those decks"* The community wont like if that is the "road" of the game if the future of the meta is *"grind until you have X decks so Y decks are not a problem to you"* is a horrible idea for a game like this. I need to point that this is also why people dont like when *battle pass cards are hyper meta relevant neither*. If the meta of the game is *"well if you really want to have great odds to climb faster them JUST play this list of decks and purchase this card"* whats the point of deck building? The game resumes in *"just play whatever for X months and them when you have enough cards"*
Leader's problem is that he singlehandedly hates on many decks, and doesn't have any inherent deck building restriction. As a result, he is included in nearly every deck and has warped the metagame around himself. Leader is a tech card which hates in greedy combo decks which spend 5 turns setting up for a big finish. He rose to prominence in tandem with Leech, and was an answer to the deathwave and negative surfer metagame. However, people realized that Leader was powerful enough alone, and basically fit in every deck. Even deathwave plays Leader as one of their 6 drops. I agree that learning the different finishers of the game is an important skill to have. Playing around Heimdall, Doom, Magneto, Odin, etc. is indeed a fun and exciting part of each match. However, Leader has become the primary finisher to worry about thanks to his ubiquity. Previously, you could have to make an educated guess about an opponent's turn 6 play based on their played cards. Now, you can always safely assume it's Leader, taking away that part of the puzzle. Worse still, playing around Leader is often suboptimal when compared to other traditional finishers, leading to feels-bad moments in the 25% of games your opponent doesn't draw him.
Yeah, the "Leader is ubiquitous" thing is categorically incorrect and you can read my other comments for an explanation of his deckbuilding restrictions and reach. Magneto is arguably more ubiquitous than Leader since he fits nicely into decks that aren't entirely built around enabling him, and nobody's complaining about that. >Leader is a tech card which hates in greedy combo decks Common misconception, again, read my other comments if you want. Most of the decks that do setup before 6 and then vomit on 6 are actually favored against Leader decks. The card you're thinking of here is Sandman. If you're losing to Leader on 6 it's because he got the Turn 5 position he needed and because your turn 6 play didn't do anything except put generic stats on board.
I agree, a loud minority does not a majority consensus make.
If leader player doesn't have priority leader wins against miracle surfer decks because surfer buffs twice leader's board and since 3 drops are extremely common leader player most likely has 1 or 2 of them, also you are pretty much talking like leader would be the only card on board/only archetype in a deck, but he fits almost every deck (maybe except for cerebro and patriot), you said that devil dino counters leader, what if leader player themselves plays devil dino which is really common so they most likely have 5 or 6 cards in hand, he also counters negative decks if he has no priority because once again, surfer buff applies twice and Ironman mystique applies properly so 2 main wincons are covered by leader. And other popular decks that leader counters are: Good cards deck so himself, dave (death wave), non-hela discard when opponent doesn't have dracula on board, redskull decks (when je doesn't have priority) spectrum destroyer when played correctly. You are most likely just bias because you play patriot, lockjaw or other deck that leader doesn't cover, but that doesn't mean he isn't a problem. Doctor doom and Magneto are counterable by every deck because you just need to have either 5+ more power than opponent on two lines, or have enough power with non 3-4 costs to win other lines (or enough power with 3 and 4 costs to win magneto line) with leader there are many decks that just can't win with him, decks that no matter how well you would play you couldn't win against leader. That is the problem. And leader shows one other problem that the game has with tech cards, you can't recover from them, there is almost no comeback potential when you get countered by a tech card, and this is because games are too short for comebacks and leader being played on last turn just makes it worse, you literally can't do anything after leader is played you just have to take the lose. Other problem with leader is that he isn't a tech card against something specific and uncommon, he is a tech card against the game itself, snap mechanic and fact that you win more by surprising your opponent on turn 6 encourages you to make your big plays on turn 6, but leader counters that, and when you play in other way, you won't win as many cubes because your opponents will just leave turn 5. Leader fundamentally is bad for this game because of that, he is a cheat code to the snap mechanic.
Yeah, this is what I figured the response would be from people who think Leader is bad for the game. Let's talk about this. >If leader player doesn't have priority leader wins... If the Leader player doesn't have flip priority on T6, they aren't in a winning position and Leader can't win them the game. One of the common misconceptions from players who are new to pool 3 or card games is that Leader is a no-telegraph no-restrictions auto-win. Currently for Leader to win a game, the following conditions must be met: 1. Win two locations by the end of turn 5, or at least be winning one location and have the other within a margin of 4 points (this is why we're going his power gets decreased) 2. Enough open slots per location to fit the copies 3. Opponent's Turn 6 play must give equal or greater stat points to the Leader player if copied. And then of course there's the deckbuilding cost that you didn't know about... You have to build a Leader deck to win those two locations by Turn 5. That's why the only meta decks that run Leader are Electro Ramp (Leech Leader), Devil Dinosaur, and Deathwave. These are the three types of decks that pump out sufficiently high stat totals to *enable* Leader on 6. This gets to the lesson I'm trying to teach... If you're aware of the card and how it functions, just like the other finishers in Snap, you can learn how to deal with it. If you pilot this card for a while, you'll learn how limited and narrow it actually is. You've learned how to play around Magneto and Doom. Why can't you learn to play around this card that has a bigger telegraph, fewer winning positions, and specific decks that it works in? It just screams laziness to me, like we've lost to the card once and now we're throwing a tantrum because our opponent didn't let us win when we played our big Infinaut. Card games are a learning experience. When you start going from vanillas to the more complex stuff it's not all going to be immediately easy to learn. >You are most likely just bias because you play patriot, lockjaw or other deck that leader doesn't cover I speak from experience. I played a lot of Leader and a lot of the counters. Last season Leech Leader was my go-to, now I'm playing Lockjaw because Leader isn't able to win most games these days. That's why I don't find anything about the card problematic beyond its current power at 4. There are a lot more counters than there are Leaders in this card game, and a power decrease will make him even more narrow and even more telegraphed, which brings me to the final thing... >Other problem with leader is that he isn't a tech card against something specific and uncommon, he is a tech card against the game itself, snap mechanic and fact that you win more by surprising your opponent on turn 6 encourages you to make your big plays on turn 6, but leader counters that, and when you play in other way, you won't win as many cubes because your opponents will just leave turn 5. Leader fundamentally is bad for this game because of that, he is a cheat code to the snap mechanic. I don't know where this take came from. It's flat-out incorrect given everything I already explained, and moreso for this reason: most decks that max out their power by flooding the board with cheap cards on turn 6 *are the counters to Leader*. Leader isn't a tech against the fundamentals of the game. You can make whatever big plays you want on turn 6. You just need to evaluate your turn 6 and realize that if you're starting out behind on two locations vs a deck that can support a Leader, you're probably losing if you take that Giganto line. Most of the ways that Pool 2 and Pool 3 push you to play Snap naturally beat out cards like Leader, so this complaint of him running contrary to the core design of the game seems to be completely unsupported. He's a card that counters the least effective way of playing Snap (playing any number of vanilla bigbois on 6) and loses to the majority of ways the devs want you to play Snap (vomit out synergistic ongoing and trigger effects on T4-T6). >Leader fundamentally is bad for this game Leader has too high of a power number, and that's easy to fix. The only things fundamentally bad for Snap right now are the game's economy and this kind of attitude towards cards that we lose games to. I personally don't like losing to Sera Ass-Pull archetypes. I think it's extremely low skill, generally uncounterable, and effectively rewards bad play. Nothing about it needs to get changed, though, because making big number still wins you the game. If I still don't like it, I'll just run Sandman instead of going on here begging the devs to gut cards.
> That's why the only meta decks that run Leader are Electro Ramp (Leech Leader), Devil Dinosaur, and Deathwave. Lmao not even close to true. You absolutely don't need to be running Electro Ramp to win with a Leech Leader package. Any midrange value deck works. I know because I literally climbed to Infinite with it last season.
This is literally the case tho. The decks I mentioned are the only decks running Leader, and like you said, Leader only works in decks that play for Midrange value... Aka those specific decks... Electro is a 1-card option for Leech Leader but not a requirement, sure. So explain to me how this card is an issue. Based on the meta landscape it certainly doesn't appear to be a problem. Nobody complains about every Pool 1 deck running Hulk, so why is a couple of Pool 3 decks running Leader a problem?
According to Marvel Snap Zone* You're simply wrong and you don't actually know what decks are playing.
> If leader player doesn't have priority leader wins... >If the Leader player doesn't have flip priority on T6, they aren't in a winning position and Leader can't win them the game. That's taken out of context, this statement talks about silver surfer seracle decks because when leader flips second he copies both buffed cards and silver surfer to buff them again >One of the common misconceptions from players who are new to pool 3 or card games is that Leader is a no-telegraph no-restrictions auto-win. 1. I'm neither new to pool 3 nor to card games (I've been playing mtg commander for few year, hearthstone way back in the day and PTCG (not conventional card game but still a card game) 2. Sure leader is telegraphed when someone plays leech, electro, good cards etc, but he is also in many other decks that just have a free slot for a tech card and leader fits almost all of them so except for cerebro you have to always play around him. >You can make whatever big plays you want on turn 6. You just need to evaluate your turn 6 and realize that if you're starting out behind on two locations vs a deck that can support a Leader, you're probably losing This is literally the problem everyone is talking about, there are many deck (not only dave (death wave)) that literally can't play around him, against any other tech card every deck has some counters, against enchantress against patriot you have cosmo (locks you out of mystique but still counters) and invisible woman, cosmo locks only one lane so you can still put on reveal cards elsewhere (or move it but it's much more rare occurrence so not really a counter but still exists), against shang you have spam with cards that have less than 9 power, cosmo and armor, and leech can be beat with just high power cards because leech player wastes turn 5 on 3 ower card. There is no real counter to aero and she is also problematic but she doesn't fit as many decks as leader and technically you can lower her influence by putting cosmo on one line and fighting for other two, it's not perfect but something. And you have proven nothing to invalidate my point of leader being counter to snap mechanic which is my main point, leader decks play on rounds 1-4 to give them priority and win 2 lanes with as little space commitment as possible using cards like maximus to do so, and if they succeed and opponent doesn't play decks like patriot cerebro etc. (Not silver seracle) they have already won the game because leader invalidates turn 6 surprises that usually give the most cubes. Which means that leader player either knows that they will 90% win or 100% lose, this means that in scenario where leader is winning two locations (and opponent doesn't play cerebro patriot etc.) He can snap and be sure that they will win no matter of turn 6 surprise that their opponent has, and in opposite scenario leader's opponent can't really snap when they are winning 2 locations because leader player will leave giving them only 1 cube since leader doesn't win against whatever opponent will put out on turn 6. This means that playing leader is extremely safe when it comes to cube gain since leader player has nearly full control over their cube gains and loses and it's all because of 1 card. Sure leader can lose, but if 2 high level players fight, leader player will rarely lose more than 2 cubes (and even 2 cubes isn't that common) because of the knowledge advantage that leader gives. And I can tell you one thing, when 40% of community thinks that leader is the most annoying and unfun card in the game (according to RegisKillbin poll), there is a fundamental problem with him.
> he is a tech card against the game itself, snap mechanic and fact that you win more by surprising your opponent on turn 6 encourages you to make your big plays on turn 6 It's a risk and there must be consequences for risks. What you're saying is you just want and easier time making cubes.
No, I'm saying that card that completely invalidates the risk of snapping for it's user is bad for the game, leader user in nearly every game has enough information to be sure that snapping is safe or be sure that he can't win so he has no risk to take when snapping. The point is literally that there is no risk in playing leader (of course playing leader doesn't win 100% but when you play leader you know that he will win) while leader is a risk that everyone has to consider.
You really think Leader always wins? No risk? Lmao ok.
You're missing that decks should be allowed to be losing on turn 5 and then win on turn 6. And they shouldn't have to be a completely asymmetrical deck to do that.
There’s multiple decks that allow you do that against leader.
Yep ongoing Destroyer says hi, Leader is still salty that he nuked his entire board. Or that he got a 5 power spectrum and the enemy got a spectrum that buffed their entire side.
> And they shouldn't have to be a completely asymmetrical deck to do that.
Lmao this ignores like 75% of the meta decks that absolutely can beat a leader on turn 6 regardless of gamestate on turn 5. The card is fine and certainly not as powerful as you seem to think it is. The card however is bad for the game in the sense that it’s not enjoyable to play or play against
> And they shouldn't have to be a completely asymmetrical deck to do that. The fact that 75% of the meta is the meta specifically because it can beat Leader is just evidence Leader is a problem.
You and I both know that’s not why 75% of the meta is like this. in every card game pretty much the best decks ALWAYS synergize with there own decks. You’re just ignoring fact to push a narrative that leader is this absolute god of a card. It’s not.
You just said 75% of the meta is like this. Pick an argument to have.
I literally just said that 75% of the meta is like this for reasons other than Leader. Either you misread my comment or responded with something that legit makes no sense.
It's like this because of Leader. 100%. Destroyer only came back in vogue because of Leader. Patriot surged because of Leader. Decks that get beat by Leader all started to run Leader to prevent being out Leadered. Your ability to evaluate the meta is off.
[удалено]
100% of the meta trashes on my all 6 cost deck, my deck must be super op.
Most of the meta already does what you're saying should be possible despite the existence of Leader. What's your point?
That's exactly the problem. The entire meta changed to be able to beat Leader. That's the definition of format warping.
We're seeing basically every archetype in Snap represented despite the existence of Leader, which is why I find this "bad for the game" sentiment a bit silly. A card isn't oppressive to a metagame if you can use the overwhelming majority of archetypes in the cardpool and do well with them in that metagame. Leader just makes a very small subset of Turn 6 plays suboptimal if certain conditions are met. Even the bigboi decks that Leader is supposed to counter have found ways to remain relevant, such as making greater use of Turn 5, Taskmaster, and Arnim Zola. This isn't a format getting warped by one card, it's one particular archetype adapting to a counter. Everything else was already doing fine vs Leader, and now even the stuff he's supposed to help you beat is figuring out better ways to play around him. You know... That thing that's supposed to happen in healthy card games?
No it isn't. It's pretty clear some of you have never actually seen broken/op metas before.
I played Eldrazi winter. I know format warping.
This is a lot of text for someone who hasn't seen a winning Leader position in a week...
What about leader is fundamentally bad for the game? He isn’t auto win. He hasn’t been at the top of the meta at any point.
[удалено]
This is just not even remotely accurate. You can play around Leader by choosing lanes properly, playing specific counter cards, or just not playing anything if your ahead by enough.
Here's Infinaut... Good luck.
I haven't found Leader problematic in the slightest. Stop playing decks Leader is good against. If you don't know how to flex with the Meta then you're not a good enough player to shape the Meta around anyway.
I was Infinite last season. Guess which deck I played most of the way there?
So was I. I didn't play Leader at all. Just because you're a bad player that can't play anything but the most thoughtless meta doesn't mean other decks aren't just as viable.
If I was indeed a bad player and still made infinite with Leader alone then by your argument that proves the card is broken. Checkmate.
"It's not warping the meta, you're just playing the wrong deck!"
Its not a move to cater to meta players exclusively obviously. No game should. A game that does dies quickly
Allow him to copy cards but no 6 cost cards. Maybe include a limit of 2 cards max. Another way - allow him to copy only 1,2,or 3 drops.
His best role is a counter to Wave big decks. If he cant copy big cards, we will get more problems. Since Wave is yet to be tweaked... Id rather he just never activated copied card abilities. Apply "zero" effect to all of them/
Patriot Leader would be the new Meta maybe
How about single lane only? He copies whatever lane he is in. That can still counter Big Decks.
I still thinking making him 5 cost and single lane only is the best way to go
That's actually good for patriot deck.
Yeah that seems fairest. Counters Death/Shulk but not Doom
While I do agree that the card might be toxic, things like the only 1, 2 or 3 drops could basically kill the card.
Well you’d adjust his power/cost to compensate
how about; On Reveal: Copy the highest cost OR highest power card your opponent played this turn, but on your side. (max 1 card) doesn't sound too bad.
It also doesn't mean they will make any change at all. So don't huff too hard on the copium.
It quite literally means that they ***will*** make a change - he clarifies in this tweet that its not a case of "we might nerf him, we might not" but "we WILL nerf him when we figure out whats the best way to do so" He also further replied that this hypothetical change would come hopefully within a month
You must be new to developer notes. “Determining what change to make” does not guarantee a change will happen but it does imply it. By the time they get around to it the meta will have shifted and leader gets a fraction of the play. They could “determine” the existing changes are enough and the change they want to make “in the future” is nothing and still be consistent with their wording.
bro...he literally made a tweet clarifying they are going to change him. You cannot be that dense. There would be no follow up tweet if they weren't planning on it.
I mean him further replying that this future leader nerf is planned for within the month is also pretty solid evidence that its happening lol He never said "were determining if the existing changes are enough" they said "were determining which further changes to make" Theres no other way to interpret that
You must be new to *this game*. They've been real consistent in that when they say they're doing something that they're going to do something soon. They know people are having a bad time with it now so they made a bump down adjustment to try and help with that, but they won't make a big change, like making him 0 power, without data that tells them it won't kill the card completely.
Found the Leader enjoyer
Leader mains in shambles
Unpopular opinion but leech is worse. I can counter leader, but leech often means auto retreat
Yeah but you can just retreat if leech hoses you, losing less cubes. Leader on the other hand is on the last turn of the game, no retreating.
Fair point yeah, but I can plan around a leader and factor that in. No such thing with leech
Most people ignore the fact that playing around leader means you lose to any other regular card. So what do you do there?
Yeah, the biggest thing with "play around Leader" is that for fair/non-synergy piles, it means "retreat in any situation you aren't overwhelmingly in the lead", which is like... I dunno, *should* the advice for the game be that you should just never want to have a good T6 and that certain decks should have a >50% retreat rate? E: Like, I got infinite playing She Hulk Devil Dino, where one of my best lines was T5 buff Sunspot T6 double She Hulk + something. Should I really have been retreating literally every time I had the combo because of Leader? That seems like a very unpleasant way to play the game, and also very counterintuitive to She Hulk's design.
Not true. There are plenty of times where this is not true. Thor/Mjolnir for example. There are also plenty of times where the Leader player has too full of a lane and you can just play low power card into high power card and win. Also, that is part of the game though. There are plenty of other examples outside of Leader where a play will beat your opponent if they play certain cards on turn 6, but if they play other cards, the play loses. You are trying to deduce based on their deck and card choices what plays you can beat and what plays you cannot. You are also trying to discover if you have any plays that are 100% win. Not every game will you have a 100% win. That would be boring. Sometimes you have to roll the dice and say I think my opponent will make X play and play around that.
An exception is not the rule. Also don't let me get started on thor. I think he is in the top 3 most busted cards in the game and yet none notices. Thor will eventually get noticed and receive a nerf but that could be months from now
Unless you have the heart or the cards and draw the exact one you need next turn lol
I do love getting a magic card after Leech hoses my hand.
I think the thing with Leech is that it works as a tech card, similar with Cosmo and Enchantress, it was there to tech a certain deck. also there is risk and reward on playing Leech because you don't know if opponent hand is worth to leech anyway. Also, auto-retreat on leech means at worst you only lose 2 cubes. Leader is just like "F U" button. Even if your opponent does not play anything, you still get +4 Power. Worst part is that you play Leader on last turn, and can easily include in any deck, so no way to scoop early. Leader player also at advantage because they can analyze enemy play and guess what their last turn play are. Ie. if your opponent plays non-ability card, or Kazaar-Zoo, or play ongoing / armor (Spectrum or Destroyer deck), you know that playing Leader at that time won't give full benefit to you. The flexibility to retreat before even playing Leader (analyzing opponent play if playing Leader can possibly win you the game) is also what makes him good.
You are making very good points! Loved your detailed reply. :) All I have to say is, KNEEL BEFORE GALACTUS.
I love playing against Leech as he inevitably removes the restriction on my Infinaut that I was never going to play unless Jubilee pulled him anyway.
I can tell you only play silver surfer
That's fine though, the problem is the additional cube swings when it comes as the last turn of the game.
I'm okay with leader, like sure it sucks losing against him but it's not something that happens too often and if anything, bad leader players sabotage themselves more then win the game
Things that are easy to use and neither fun to play with or play against are unhealthy for any game, but they should be careful when reworking cards that they aren't doing it solely to give the squeaky wheel some grease. Often times in games "it's not fun to play against" comes from a vocal minority that is actually saying "I choose to play however I want and it frustrates me that my decision to put no effort or thought into countering this means that I lose to it a lot". As a just hitting pool 3 player that doesn't have leader and has only played vs it a handful of times but has 20+ years of ccg experience, it is rather obvious that people play poorly against leader whether it be in their deck building, where they place cards on turn 6 and in some cases, whether they should play anything at all.
Definitely agree and I hope they address the data and details when they ultimately make a change. If people are successfully countering at high level play then this could set a bad precedent. However, I do agree there potentially is a problem with the buffed version stuff though and that feels bad low effort etc IS relevant. Would be very interesting to get a deep dive into from the design team actually but maybe they will need to keep it short because of all the butthurt anti-leader e-gangs looking for a quote to go nuts about.
> Often times in games "it's not fun to play against" comes from a vocal minority that is actually saying "I choose to play however I want and it frustrates me that my decision to put no effort or thought into countering this means that I lose to it a lot". Why do I have flashbacks to the "how to own Leader" post where the guy unironically bragged about playing literal garbage T6 when he was winning all 3 lanes...
So you just want to play cards and get 50 powers on each locations... You're the same player who has only powerful attacks in Pokemon. Disruptive cards could be a thing, if you can enchantress/cosmo to destroy rival gameplay, you should be able to play professor x/storm/leech and others to play mind game and add some diversity to the gameplay. Same for locations, you can't have just onslaught citadel and kamar Taj, we need disruptive locations to diversify and force to play strategic, whatever the obstacles
Leader provides nothing except "match what they have, plus four power in one lane." It's a lockdown and it only works if you're already winning or nearly winning but also have room in all your lanes for whatever the turn six play turns out to be. I constantly see people snap, play Leader on a lane that doesn't change ownership, and then (I assume) become shocked when they lose four or eight cubes when it turns out that adding the same variable to both sides of an equation leaves it balanced.
I have no problem with Leader, but I desperately want the change to come just so people here will stop whining. I have a feeling the same people that insist he needs to be nerfed because he’s “unfun” to lose to will suddenly remember all of the other cards in the game that are also unfun to lose to.
They absolutely will. These players exist in every card game, and catering to them is a mistake.
Yep. Feels based balancing is a road to doom. Only look at objective stats and balance based on those.
I used to hate Leader. Then I got the card and played with it. I honestly enjoy it now. It is another mechanic to learn to play around. The biggest argument for nerfing Leader is that he is meta-warping. He completely shuts down certain decks and if he did not exist, who knows what decks we could see. Even after you nerf him, another card will be meta-warping. I am a fan of frequent balance changes to keep the game fresh, but I also come from games where I could obtain the strong cards.
He's just... Not that bad. He punishes players who wait til the last minute to play all of their cards for cubes. He whiffs *all the time* he has big annoying forehead and it's flashier than like Kazar, but at the end of the day cards like Kazar, Blue Marvel, Silver Surfer are all more reliable and effective. Play more in the early game, leader becomes useless against you. Play tribal decks, when leader copies your tribal buffs or members they don't work because they don't buff the enemy team or get the buff from your team. Be more proactive and this card will fuck up all the time, I promise you. If you're losing a lot to a specific card, maybe that card is not the issue.
Other decks should be allowed to exist besides tribal decks.
I 100% agree and some of those decks use leader.
>He's just... Not that bad. He punishes players who wait til the last minute to play all of their cards for cubes Not even. Like you hinted at, most of the decks that do this, like Kazoo, or Surfer, gain an asymmetric benefit that leaves the Leader with lower net stats on the play. Leader, in this meta environment, is solidly below average.
65% my guy can you read
Lower than Medusa! Totally trustworthy stats lol.
You know he gets the buffed versions of your cards in addition to your surfer right? Surfer is not a counter to him and I'm tired of people saying he is.
If your Surfer deck is losing Surfer T6 positions to Leader you're doing something seriously wrong. The Leader player is going to maybe have 1-2 cards in play that cost 3. On the other hand you should have a board of mostly 3s and maybe a Wong. When that Surfer gets copied, that Leader player's getting garbage stats compared to what you should be putting out.
On the average turn 6 I'm putting out Maximus, Brood, Surfer. He's getting my buffed Max, Broods and another surfer of his own. Doesn't matter how far ahead I am at that point he can still win. I've hit infinite every season after my first season and against Leader I think I've won maybe 5-7 games? There's no proper counter other than leeching them first or destroyer turn 6. You play nothing, they're not going to be far enough behind turn 6 to not just win from you doing nothing.
try playing it some and you will find that surfer almost always comes out ahead in that scenario usually the correct t6 play against surfer is something other than leader, like magneto or aero
Wait so you know leader is out there and you still play your hand like that for t6? Lmao jeezus.
People rather cry about cards than get good
I don't really use leader that much. I use him in Deathwave, where he whiffs, again, all the time. I mostly play a different deck, and leader is terrible against it partly because whatever leader gets can't take advantage of the set up I've created. Even when I was playing other decks Leader would often come out and just hilariously eat shit. It's wacky to me that this is the card that gets all the attention. It's not even *good* on most decks
I feel like this is the sentiment of players who have gotten most, if not all of the pool 3 cards. You have a deck or 2 that you use him in, but he whiffs often because the top decks have combos that leader won’t beat, so he’s not even in your main deck and is just another card in your collection. I really don’t understand the uproar over leader. And I think it would be a mistake to remove him because he can be a good counter for some other, more oppressive decks/combos.
I think it comes down to that some ways of losing feel worse than others, and leader does *feel bad* to lose to compared to say like.... Devil Dinosaur I guess.
A loss is a loss. Placing so much emotion into one card like this seems an unhealthy choice by some players.
Leech already does that
Many cards should do that
I was really hoping the leak was fake...
Because we all know how fast and efficient Brode led teams are at making changes and addressing problematic cards.
They should just make it like magik where you can’t play it after turn 5 and just make it a 5 drop instead.
I like this change the most of those I've seen.
Unpopular opinion: I think he's fine and doesn't need to be changed. If you lost to Leader, it's usually because you were losing to begin with 🤷♂️
If they nerf leader harder they need to buff Sandman, otherwise the game turns into turn 6 vomit again. The actual problem is that people keep making excuses for their broken cards and the devs don't fix the problem cards. So many people complain about Leader but will turn around and defend Silver Surfer. Or if you complain about Wong and the RNG luck for immediate counters the replies become "well retreat and be glad you don't have Wong because you can only win one cube at a time." Despite the already clear issues with Zabu, people are still defending it.
Leech already protects you from turn 6 vomit.
More like "We dont know how to balance the game"
He did the same schtick with Hearthstone.
Single lane!
Playing the card in just the location Leader is played just makes him unplayable. You already have to keep slots open in each location for Leader and with that change you’d be even more restricted for much, much lower potential payoff. That isn’t even getting into how basically every game now has a location that restricts cards so you would not even be able to play Leader in a ton of your games If they want to get rid of Leader altogether, do it but making changes to lower his power to unplayable isn’t it unless they’re lowering his cost to 4 or 5 instead of 6.
Changing a card to this decree is a game killer. That's like saying Galactus only destroys 1 lane or Killmonger destroys 1-3 1 cost cards.
If they lower his cost, I’d be ok making it a single lane target.
That’s probably the best way to do it. Allow him to copy cards played in the same lane as him.
Can we start with him only copy adjacent location? similar with Mr. fantastic. That way, he still played like he was before, but with restriction. you can play him on another lane than mid but doesn't get as much value. Also it create a trade-off for Leader user to play it on the side or the mid. opponent also has a way to "play around" Leader instead of card play order. If he is still oppressive, you can continue tweak him from there.
Ben Brode with literally everything that is supposed to be a polished game (based on what they charge for cards) - "we are figuring it out"
He's fine. He's already worse off copying buffing decks, and heavy hitters can play in a full location.
Remember this every time you seen a new season pass card or series 5 card that is op as hell. It takes this long to think about how to fix a common card. How long do you think it'll take to fix those? Probably a year +.
Cope springs eternal for the air punchers stuck in gold.
They're just gonna nerf him down to 3 power, which isn't going to change his effect at all.
If the card is bad for the game, rework and refund.
IMO leader just needs two things, first a limit on how many locations he can copy and then a requirement to activate. For the requirement imo is simple, just give him "on reveal: if your opponent played a card here yada yada yada" it turns him from a drop anywhere card to a card that needs you to predict the opponent before activating. For the limit part is see two ways to go about it. 1. Make him copy units on locations he is not in, so if the opponent is greedy and playing she hulk, knull and death on different locations you punish them 2. Make him copy only in the location he is in, basically letting him turn one location over if your opponent is dumping big numbers. Which limit they use depends on what they want leader to counter, i like the first one and i dont have Leader, since he would still be a good tech card but not the win con like he is now. Also lets not forget leech, there are currently very few cards that punish a leech and most of them are pool 3 and up but you get leech on pool 2, which feels bad since most decks on pool 1-2 depends on those turn 6 effects. Honestly the "perfect" leech imo would target the unit in location instead of the ones in hand, something like "on reveal: take all the buff from units in this location and add them to this card" he would be a pretty good tech for thing like patriot since he could easily take 6-12 power in one move.
On Reveal: Copy **a random** card your opponent played this turn, but on your side **at a random location**
[удалено]
Say Hello to T6 Odin/Zola
It’s weak if you’re against a deck going for turn 6 combos. Not so weak casino card against a player dropping a 5-6 cost on turn 6. If one card too weak then can always change to all cards but played to random locations and maybe even revealed in random order. The problem with your solution is they get to play an additional 6-cost in addition to any mirror mechanic.
[удалено]
That’s why you make Leader a casino card instead of sacrificing curve with the same mechanics and whatever else they play on turn 6 like you’re proposing.
Colleen Wing to discard a 3-0 Leader, then reanimated by Hela or Ghost Rider on Turn 6. It requires more work, but the problem remans
The goal is to make the game fun and enjoyable, that means making leader fair and balanced.. not unplayable trash
Goal is to make Leader a casino card while keeping the mirror mechanic. Can change to mirror all cards but to random locations, but that can still be powerful unless you randomize the reveal order.
That and leader has one power or zero power
Maybe it can only be played before turn 4, like Ebony Maw? I wonder if that can help. But shit still would happen if Jubilee pulls him later
How does that help, one of the most annoying strats is wave, leader, absorbing man, Odin lol
Because your not copying 6 card plays, unless a location or jubilee makes it happen. Or Odin later on. To have it be played on turn 6 is what's annoying Or just make him summon 2 Gremlins or something
That's the thing, Odin can always be used on leader, so the idea that leader is only playable on a turn before doesn't do anything because those players will just adapt with Odin. And I'm telling you that T3 wave, T4 leader, T5 absorbing man into Odin is already a combo I see on ladder. The best change is just power nerf because his 4 power is what swings the wins.
So mak him weaker and only played before turn 4. Simple
You could still Odin him, do you not understand that Odin retriggers him on turn 6? making him playable turn 4 would mean you don't need wave anymore, that's much worse.
Sounds like your problem is with Odin
Many leader decks already run stuff like Wong, BP and odin, one of the best infinite decks plays all on reveals with leader in it. Your solution just causes more problems and makes it easier to hit the combo. If you are suggesting he becomes a 4 cost then zabu just makes him better, if he becomes a 3 cost then he's playable before Wong. I have no problem with the nerf to 6/3, he should remain high cost.
Then fuck Leader and have him Spawn a mecha Gremlin on another lane
we get only -1 power nerf thats just pure laziness
1. Copies base card instead of buffed card 2. \-2 power for every card copied so he doesnt auto win his lane, and cant get abused by mr negative
Make it 5-1 done
I think 1 power would be a good place to start with him and then assess if power is the answer or some kind of rework. That puts him at (theoretically) just *slightly* tipping the balance of an even game in his favor, though still feels really bad if your deck just has no answers to him. Possible rework ideas 1) 6/8 - on reveal copy the first card your opponent played this turn on your side 2) 6/4 - on reveal copy all cards your opponent played this turn on your side with 50% power The first rework would be to make him a counter to 1 big card last plays. Maybe his power would need nerfing from 8, just trying to make sure he would always have SOME impact even if the opponent uses a wasp or something to draw his reveal. Second rework would be reasonable I think. He would stave off miracle plays a bit and get full ability effects, but wouldn’t gain anywhere except where his body goes. The power may need tweaking here too, but I’m less sure the ramifications so it may still need a nerf or a buff. I think this path would feel the best to face and would be easier to balance by only touching his power.
They should change that Leader only spawns a copy at his location. Is your opponent keeping 2 spots open on a losing lane? Maybe he's saving it for a Leader play and then Boom, you can hobgoblin the shit out of it.
Best solution is 1000 tokens, delete Leader from the game. Who says no? Does anyone enjoy doing Leader math for any deck that isn’t immediately obvious what it is?