[Study] Dependent Cards

[AD TienzuStorm]

Question: When are cards acceptable whilst being dependent on other cards to function?

There are certain cards both in game and in the CIA that are very reliant on other cards to actually function (well, to function well at least).

Example:


It is almost completely reliant on using death effects, which limits it to being in an Entropy/Death duo with the few select cards that interact with it (Soul Catcher, Bone Wall, Boneyard, Vulture). However, it was voted up through the CIA and made it into the game, so it must've done something right. The only thing left there is figuring out what.

Yet now in the CIA, you can frequently see comments like "is too reliant on X card(s), needs to be stronger". The aim of this study is to figure out when reliant cards are great and when they're aren't so great.

[andretimpa]

Kitty's best use is as unupped mutation fodder

If it was harder to kill it would be much stronger in death decks.

[JonathanCrazyJ]

If it was harder to kill it would be much stronger in death decks.

Schrodinger's Cat.
The only card that wants more HP so it can die MORE.

[OldTrees]

Reliance is a spectrum. Understanding the spectrum roughly answers this question.

1) All cards have reliance on quanta production (30 horned frogs will not do anything), or quanta consumption(30 pillars ) except for the rare 0 cost creature/weapon. Since this reliance is so ubiquitious, it is considered the norm and will be ignored in the rest of this post.

2) Some cards require other cards. Each card in the reliance is judged separately (since reliance is a net and not a chain).

Consider Blessing, Schrodinger's Cat, and Shard of Wisdom, how many options do each of those cards have in choosing their partners?
Blessing + any creature (lots)
Schrodinger's Cat + any death effect card (~4) or + mutation or + butterfly effect (~6 although Soul Catcher + any death card is a bit more than just a "+1 option")
Shard of Wisdom + immortal creature (~3 although Quint + any creature is a bit more than just a "+1 option")

The decrease in number of options should follow your intuition that each of these cards is more and more reliant. This (especially the "a bit more than" stuff) is the spectrum.

3) For card combos(reliant cards), measurements of "reliance" is just the inverse of measuring "synergies". Schrodinger's Cat has ~6 synergies while Shard of Wisdom only has ~3 synergies. We all know that more synergies is generally more beneficial to the game by increasing the variety of options and fun for the playerbase. It thus follows that a reliant card with too few synergies contributes too little to the game for it to be worth considering.

4) So what is this point on the spectrum where cards become too reliant? Far too specific a question to answer definitively from my mere theorycrafting. However the rule of thumb I have used is "3 is the minimum, 6 is the goal for anyone worried about hitting the minimum".

Edit: Miscounted number of SoW synergies. (also I didn't know SoW could be used on non immortal creatures)

[JonathanCrazyJ]

I'd agree with all that OldTrees said except the number of synergies of SoW:

Morning Glory
Immortal
Phase Dragon
Turquoise Nymph
Anubis
Quint
Anything that makes use of the +4/0 buff that doesn't need the spell damage (DeVu, Scorpians etc)

I'd say that only 3 synergies are actually a bit low for a card, and that 5 or 6 is more of a target.

[Espithel]

Personally, I think you're all looking at it wrong.
The number of cards that the card has a synergy with isn't the question. The question is the number of decks that are either created or altered by the card's existence.

Blessing and SoW may combo with >every creature<, but it only makes a certain number of viable decks. (Last time I checked SoW works well in at least seven decks.)

See, the most parasitic of all cards is simply one that only works in one deck. That's an issue. Why have this card that alters  only ONE deck, when you can have this card which not only alters many, but creatures some of its own?

This is also why Cat is, theoretically, not an issue. It may only combo with... a tiny handful of cards, sure. But it makes more than one deck from that tiny handful.
At least, it's supposed to if it wasn't so weak.

This explanation also explains why cards like purify and reflective shield - essentially just semi-hard counters to certain decks - are fine, even though they don't really... Combo.

[OldTrees]

Personally, I think you're all looking at it wrong.
The number of cards that the card has a synergy with isn't the question. The question is the number of decks that are either created or altered by the card's existence.

True. The better the designer the more big picture their position of measurement would be (cards -> decks -> strategies -> gameplay -> enjoyment). However those who most need a quantitative metric are those who are still rooted in the small picture.