I'm not going to respond in place of Laxadarap as the only person who can do that is laxa himself, but we already covered that because a Combo is "OP" does not mean that any of the cards in the combo is necessarily OP in an universal situation -- something you said you wouldn't argue in here as this thread is "not the thread for it".
As for the steal, it's obviously an exxageration, which is why we moved on from the Sanctuary issue a while ago, when I noticed the randomized number of steals.
Again, what you see and what you don't see are not what necessarily is and what necessarily isn't.
Now for your response to me.
The ratio is not the same. Use your calculator if you have to: 3 / 2 > 4 / 3. I would argue that the SN nerf makes it less of a "relatively 0-cost card" than it used to be because now you can't use them all in one turn; your opponent has chances to lower your quanta. BH also heals (on average, lets say), 24 HP. How many is that worth? Also, putting one sanc in a PSNbow (there's no way you have the deck space or the quanta to put two) is far from a guarantee that you'll draw it early enough to protect you from BH. And if you're seriously suggesting that most decks have no control, then I think your understanding of the metagame may not be perfect; in a rush vs. rush scenario, the faster rush wins. But if a stall plays a rush, the stall typically wins. Therefore game theory necessitates that if the majority of decks are rushes, smart players will begin to play more stalls because they can reliably beat rushes. And yes, Arena is one of the places where you definitely need control (try outrushing a 200 HP deck that's drawing two cards a turn).
I know math, thanks. But in our pretty case, I am sure that the math is not the only thing that counts. 3/2 > 4/3. Our dear 3/2 only covers up healing capacities, while our 4/3, as I will say, for the Nth time,
defends our hand and quanta while also not requiring an specific mark to heal that much, it also heals more than the dear 3/2, protects hand and quanta pool and is therefore absolutely justifiable for such a cost and is relatively just as good as if not better than our dear 3/2. I really won't repeat this any longer as I feel I have said this enough and it's basically beating on a dead horse now.
The SN nerf does not make it any less of a 0 card cost. You have a pre-requisite of 2
to use a card that will give you back your 2: entropy while producing other 22 quanta (The 2 of every other element.) This makes it, "literally", a 0 cost card with a prerequisite. It does not matter the repeated use in a turn or the repeated turn along the game for our little cost theory that we're following along this thread, and yes the literal cost / quanta / effect (You stressed this in your original post -- a card generates 24 quanta, a card drains... so on.. so on....)
Now let's cover a bit of.. inconsistencies.
Also, putting one sanc in a PSNbow (there's no way you have the deck space or the quanta to put two) is far from a guarantee that you'll draw it early enough to protect you from BH.
I find it fun you say this just a bit before saying
then I think your understanding of the metagame may not be perfect
Well, let's go then. Do you really think people fit only one Sanctuary just because they "may not have deck space or the quanta to put two". It is not hard to swap two simple cards for Sanctuary as Speedbows are really, really versatile (Something I have said Nth times as well.)
Also, just because you don't have quanta for it does not mean that you would not add it. Most supernova bows have electrum hourglasses or SoBras or Precognitions. Adding two sanctuary, although for the whole game you may not have the quanta needed to play both, you add them for nothing else but
draw consistency. So, if you're really etlling me that people add only what is needed and don't worry about draw consistency, then...
then I think your understanding of the metagame may not be perfect
That is all. Because following that logic... Well, that's a discussion for another time.
PS: Supernova bows have 6 supernovas usually, while Sanctuary upgraded costs 3 light. 3
is the average quanta of just about most creatures or cards in a supernova bow. Therefore it is still easily played. Maybe not both, but again.. draw consistency!
So yes, having two is possible, plausible, and not impossible and "there's no way". There is
always a way.
Now let me tackle what I believe is the biggest problem in all of your post.
And if you're seriously suggesting that most decks have no control, then I think your understanding of the metagame may not be perfect; in a rush vs. rush scenario, the faster rush wins. But if a stall plays a rush, the stall typically wins. Therefore game theory necessitates that if the majority of decks are rushes, smart players will begin to play more stalls because they can reliably beat rushes. And yes, Arena is one of the places where you definitely need control (try outrushing a 200 HP deck that's drawing two cards a turn).
1) Most decks in meta are rushes.
1b) Rushes don't have CC as CC slows the deck down.
1c) Most decks in meta don't have CC.
1d) Most decks don't have CC.
That is common logic and knowledge for anyone that "understands the metagame". After we talked about speedbows for almost two pages, I reckon we'd be thinking about that already..
2) Rush vs Rush, fastest rush wins.
2b) Rush vs Rush -- A rush with CC can slow down the other rush and therefore also win.
That's also a thought.
3) Rush vs Stall -- Stall typically wins.
3b) Most stalls have slow setups and are easily broken by said Rushes, that have a common ttw of 5-6 (The fastest one has an average ttw of 4.9 something if I recall correctly.)
3c) If stall beats rushes, everyone would use stalls.
You're going along nicely, except that your theory only assumes that there are two decks -- Rushes and Stalls.
Let us assume there is a third deck (because there is!) that can beat Stalls. As to not gather discussion over whether it is denial, domination, control, a better stall, we'll call it "C" -- a non stall non rush that beats stalls.
4) Rush vs Stall - Stall wins.
4b) According to you, metagame necessitates most people change to stalls as rushes are the usual dominating metagame. (This is expecting common sense, which is something we rarely see. It also suggests stalls have the break power to stop the fastest rushes.)
4 "c" ) If Rush and Stall are the only existing and Stall > Rush, metagame will evolve until Stall = Stall, therefore all decks = Stall to be competitive.
4c) Rush and Stall are not the only existing. C > Stall.
4d) It is known that Rock>Paper>Scissors. C>Stall>Rush>C. If C is made to counter stalls, the chances of it being prone to Rush assaults are high.
4e) Out of all the decks above, rush has the power to beat both C and B with a relative consistency as it is the fastest and most versatile of most decks.
4f) If C>Stall>Rush>C>Stall ... ; Decks evolve to Stall, that evolve to C, that evolve to Rush; Rush would be the dominating one as Stall loses to C that loses to Rush, while C can not beat Rush as consistently as Rush beats Stall (Stall does not have necessary breaking power.)
As for arena, you are missing a few key things.
5) Not all arena decks have 200HP and 2x draw.
6) Different arena levels = different opponents.
7) Silver = low point decks = suggestively low hp, or high hp with upgrades
7b) Silver and Bronze, in that point, could be ran with rushes as they have a relative ease that is easily dominated by the faster rushes (5 ttw rushes = 100 hp down in 5 turns; ~150 hp = 7.5 turns.)
7c) Even in Gold and Platinum, rushes are not unviable, and only unoptimal -- In gold, I have used a CPWyrms deck with quite a bit of success. A rush, in Gold and Platinum, would get your average works as not every deck has 200 HP's and decks grow older, losing HP and becoming more prone to rushes as time goes by. Rush is not optimal and not extremely viable but does not give up on being an option.
Yup.
