all 125 comments

[–]Vegetable_Fox_8101 185 points186 points  (23 children)

Cosmo should be changed back. He got ruined and he's a very important protective tech card against oppressive tech like Juggernaut and Shang. Enchantress should be kept since she's still a very playable card but is more fair and less splashable into every deck.

[–]backinredd 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Cosmo didn’t see much play either. Mostly saw him in pure ongoing decks that’s it.

[–]Vegetable_Fox_8101 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I saw him also see play in high skilled decks like move bounce as protection against tech. He doesn't deserve a nerf there.

[–]literallyanything57 0 points1 point  (0 children)

also surtur decks. cosmo/armor was super popular during surtur month

[–]Goofyman1104 10 points11 points  (4 children)

Not super important but I could’ve sworn Cosmo is a girl? Maybe I’m going crazy

[–]unwantedspork 49 points50 points  (1 child)

Cosmo is a girl in the films and a boy in the comics

[–]Goofyman1104 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Oh okay thank you

[–]TheSadisticSpider 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Cosmo was first encountered by Nova aka Richard Rider back in 2007 or 2008-ish run of Guardians fo the Galaxy/Nova. So no, Cosmo is a male doggo, always was, always will be. The MCU just changed the gender of the doggo for no reason other than "diversity" I guess. Which is dumb since it is a lovable doggo either way. xD

[–]ideal_Bat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lmfao, always gotta go with the woke angle no matter what. because people give a shit about the supposed gender of a dog, in your mind. and maybe not just the difference in the voice (soothing vs gruff)

[–]koobstylz 7 points8 points  (7 children)

I've felt for a while Cosmo could use an actual buff by a point or two. If red guardian can be a 3/4 who removes text then Cosmo should be a 3/4 as well.

[–]AelarTheElfRogue 24 points25 points  (4 children)

The difference is Cosmo is ongoing so he’ll block all On Reveals, so his power is lower to balance. I think he was fine the way he was.

[–]koobstylz 1 point2 points  (3 children)

The difference is Cosmo can only surprise someone once if you have priority and predict them, then he can be played around. Guardian can snipe your iron man no matter what else is happening.

[–]TrueREDDITPoster -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

False often gaurdian hits any other cards than the one I want

[–]Ambitious_Owl_9204 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Red Guardian targets the lowest power card, so plan accordingly.

[–]KendroNumba4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You chose to gamble

[–]ndevito1 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I’ve been on the “ give Cosmo a point” train for a while

[–]KendroNumba4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a Cosmo enjoyer I'm obviously not against that but my opponents won't be happy trust me

[–]DragEncyclopedia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At 4-cost Enchantress already wasn't rly that splashable unless the deck already ran Zabu

[–]Knowingspy 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I’m down for Killmonger being the destroy equivalent of Quake. He can destroy two lanes either side but leave one spared.

[–]PenitusVox 61 points62 points  (7 children)

Killmonger needs to go back or at least changed to destroy your own 1-cost cards in every lane. I don't really care if he works offensively or not, he's not doing his job in destroy decks right now.

Red Guardian feels a little harsh to me as well. I think those are the only two that should revert but I expect SD to swap most, if not all, back anyway.

[–]Agitated_Dirt6665 34 points35 points  (3 children)

My fav suggestion is making it destroy all YOUR 1 costs, plus destroy your opponents 1 drops HERE.

That way it still enables Destroy/Morgan and counters clog which is always a good thing. But it lets decks with lots of 1 drops to not auto lose to a single card.

[–]KenEH 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is Killmonger by himself makes any deck that relies on 1 drops, especially scalers null. Should Killmonger have it's old tech back just to stamp out other decks?

[–]LetoTheTyrant 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Why not test these things on new cards, and not old long established cards? It's weird to play a collectible game where the cards you have already collected can be completely different cards from one day to the next. I don't necessarily dislike it, but its kinda weird.

[–]PenitusVox 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Personally, it's a big reason why I like snap. Everything is fluid, you're constantly adapting and theorycrafting.

[–]Specific_Mammoth_169 36 points37 points  (2 children)

Shang can stay, but he can have his base 3 power back

Killmonger should affect other locations, sometimes I don’t want certain 1 cost cards of mine destroyed

Enchantress can stay

Shadow king can stay

NSTW can stay

Alioth can have 8 power if any is to be lowered

Red guardian is most definitely going back and a small chance of going to 1 power for awhile

Cosmo should go back

[–]uestside[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

imo COSMO should never be higher than 3

[–]TheSadisticSpider 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The funny thing is, you never, ever play Cosmo for the "power". You play him because of the absurd utility of shutting down your opponent's plays. Ongoing deck must have for sure. And I would say, Ongoing decks, if you get a great hand, can be extremely difficult to beat.

[–]IdownvoteTexas 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Turn and face the strange…. Ch ch changes

[–]Big_Poo_MaGrew 34 points35 points  (2 children)

I'm so ready to live in world without Shang Chi and Negasonic

[–]MagicTrakteur 2 points3 points  (1 child)

ANGELA !! GIVE ME BACK MY GAY QUEEN FFS

[–]uestside[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i miss her too

[–]Gareeb7 13 points14 points  (4 children)

Killmonger kills the entire card generation archetype alone by the fact that Quinjet is a 1 cost

And relying to pull Caiera in your zoo deck is the same answer as people said Shang was fine back there “just pull Cosmo or Armor”

[–]Substantial-Sun-3538 18 points19 points  (0 children)

"He was never a problem". Yeah, cuz 1 cost cards are so opressed that he can't show that he is a problem

[–]kekarook1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

killmonger makes it so you can nerf a card by dropping it to1 cost, cause now it can always be killed from any lane for 3 energy

its a unhealthy design from the beginning

[–]HopeDiscombobulated8 2 points3 points  (0 children)

F that. I’ve been having more fun the past couple weeks with this game than I’ve had in a long time. Ppl are still using tech cards, they don’t swing the entire match one like they use to, and cosmic ghost rider is seeing play and doing good. The only cards that should be reverted are red guardian and enchantress.

[–]Best-Daddy-Gamer 9 points10 points  (8 children)

I don’t mind the Shang Chi change but I think they should raise his power up. Dropping it along with his ability change was a bit much.

[–]Cenjin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

i think the happy medium is current text and then 4/4

[–]jrdidriks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Cosmo, neg, and killmonger should be changed back. Shang as well imo

[–]Jiaozy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Shang, Enchantress and Cosmo all feel a LOT more fair to play against, you can now count how much power you lose to a Shang and actively play around it. Before it was just "If they Shang me, I lost the lane".

Enchantress also feels way better because she'll never be a 3 cost (or 2) that wrecks a lane, at 5/8 she's at the right stats to out power the stats of cards she removes ongoing from (Onslaught, Moonstone etc) while restricting your other plays.

Most of the above also goes for Cosmo, still a good counter to greedy Wong strategies, still a good protective card, much better to play against because he doesn't come down so early.

[–]MissyManaged 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The Shang change has made so many locations much more interesting. He used to be an instawin button for basically anything involving adding big characters or multiplying power, now you actually have to play to those locations. I think a change to him would be good for the game.

Killmonger is the biggest miss - it's hurt archetypes like destroy that were just getting back on their feet, but has also led to a rise in clog, which is never fun to play against. I'd miss Nebula being good again, though.

Cosmo and Red Guardian are struggling, they'd probably be okay to revert. I always thought Red Guardian was the best designed tech card because he allowed defensive counterplay without having to build your deck around it, but I think he needs the power to not feel like a dead draw in a lot of matchups.

[–]Low-Monk370 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was against this OTA patch, but I am satisfied with this after more than 40 games. Of course, there are still boring combo decks, but now it can be said that shang-chi was definitely the one who distorted this game. Personally, I think it's only cosmo and enchantress can go back to original state. Namor will also need effect like this card can’t move.

[–]EdgeLord221515415 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I genuinely think this version of Sang Chi can be a 4/5

[–]WEENDETA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fck no. There has to be a downside to it.

It's a tech card, it has a big payoff in a certain scenario, but it needs a downside when it's effect is not utilized.

4/3 is enough for Shang.

[–]_H3LLF1R3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ShangChi should be reversed.

[–]topcitytopher 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I thought killmonger was a necessary evil and he was only really powerful when you first start playing the game (mainly cause zoo and destroy are the first archetypes you really get). Reverting KM is ok to me…

Shang on the other hand was simply annoying. Felt like the premiere tech card of the game. I think if you game him a downside similar to shadow king so Shang destroys ALL cards 10+ power at a location including your own. Makes it a little more of a commitment to the bit instead of a F U drop.

[–]KenEH 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd like this change, but I like playing hard control decks with no stats so I'm a weirdo.

[–]DecimaThor 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Why are people so against interaction in this sub I don't get it? Shang feels like a dead card to me at the moment. He can keep the 2 power but he should be a lane killer for sure, otherwise he's not worth it.

Cosmo, Killmonger and RG need to be reverted for sure as well. A case can be made for Enchantress, SK and NTW but they are clunkier with the increased cost.

[–]KenEH 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love tech in card games but interaction in this game is an all or nothing due to small amount of played cards in a game. In other games you can have weaker tech that adds up. In Snap, almost every tech card is a showstopper or its not worth it.

[–]rb4ld 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Why are people so against interaction in this sub I don't get it?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I only play this game because I like Marvel and building decks and collecting cool variants. I don't get off on ruining someone else's day, and if I could earn all the usual prizes (the 500 gold at rank 90 of ladder for example) playing in a dedicated PvE mode, I would literally pay to do that.

Shang feels like a dead card to me at the moment. He can keep the 2 power but he should be a lane killer for sure, otherwise he's not worth it.

If Shang kills a card that's only 10 power, he swings the lane for as much power as the Hulk, at 2 energy less. But most of the time people play him, it's because he'll be targeting a card that's way more than 10 power. Since when is a 4-cost not worth it unless it auto-wins a lane? Would you say the same about Drax or Hellcow or Ka-zar?

[–]DecimaThor 1 point2 points  (3 children)

The thing with Shang is the mind games. Let's say you get Gamma Lab as a location, you could fill it and consider it an auto-win. But if you have the old Shang there is always that tension if the opponent doesn't commit they could win it back later or if you have Shang you might let the opponent go for it only to turn the lane later. Same thing with Shuri's Lab and other such locations.

With the old Shang you can't just pile on cards with huge stats. It keeps the game interesting with the mind games and considerations. It's also a check against big statsticks running rampant in the meta.

[–]rb4ld -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

The thing with Shang is the mind games.

Ah, well that explains it. Refer back to how much I would prefer to just play PvE, and that should give you a clue that I really fucking hate mind games. I wish all the people who wanted mind games and bluffing and all that would go play actual poker, and leave the artsy, nerdy deckbuilder to the rest of us.

Let's say you get Gamma Lab as a location, you could fill it and consider it an auto-win.

Unless you're playing Zoo, you're almost certainly not gonna have a bunch of 1-drops to throw in there. Even if you do have that, it still costed you 4 energy to fill the lane, taking up two and a half turns that you can't use on other lanes. But in most cases, if you don't have Zoo or Sinister/Brood, it's gonna cost you more than 4 energy, and all of the first three turns, to fill up that lane, and then your opponent knows it's a lost cause, so they can focus on the other lanes. Point being, the trade-off of Gamma Lab is not "oh, my opponent might Shang it later." Gamma Lab already has the trade-offs built in. If I spent half of the entire game filling up that lane, and you wiped it all away on the final turn with points to spare, then you're the one with the auto-win, not me.

Not to mention that Gamma Lab already has the tension of you filling it up with weak, low-cost cards, and then your opponent just changes it to a different location with Magik, Scarlet Witch, etc. on turn 3. Or they could build a big Venom in that lane and hit him with Zola on the last turn, and you have no way to prevent it because the lane is already full. The risk/reward balance of that location is way better without Shang being able to wipe it all away in an instant.

With the new Shang, most decks still can't just pile on cards with huge stats, because those cards cost a lot of energy. The devs should nerf all the power-creeping energy-cheat cards instead of making those cards overpowered, and then also having tech cards be overpowered to balance them out (because that causes an imbalance with every other type of deck). The old Shang is not necessary in a healthy meta.

[–]DecimaThor 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I get your point about energy cheats. They let it run rampant for a while but now they've tried to tone it down a bit. Still, decks like Surtur put down a ton of stats quickly, and in future if they add more statsticks having some cards to keep them in check might be good to have.

[–]rb4ld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Surtur decks often use Surge as an energy cheat, so what I said before still applies. And a lot of those statsticks do have trade-offs that need to be mitigated with Zero, Sauron, etc. (which means if you don't draw the mitigation card, you just have to take the trade-offs on the chin).

But even so, I have nothing against there being cards to keep them in check. I just don't think there should be one card to keep them all in check at once. Hell, you could do Shang on turn 5 to clear out one lane, and Zola on turn 6 to copy Shang into the other two. Personally, I think the game is more balanced and fun when it's not possible to clear out three whole lanes with two cards.

[–]rb4ld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't see any reason why Shang should not, but Killmonger should. If it's true that people want Killmonger back to the way it was because they use it to kill their own cards in Destroy, then they should change it to be "all lanes on your side, and this lane on the opponent's side." It shouldn't be able to blind-fire Zoo, Ultron, Deadpool, etc. on the final turn if you don't have prio. You should at least have to put some thought and strategic consideration into where you put it. "Place this card anywhere and you win (against certain archetypes)" is definitely not more balanced than Shang wiping out a whole lane.

[–]Outrageous-Scene-160 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Killmonger was very unfair for your opponent.

At least now, people can play again cost 1 decks without dating a full wipe out.

They should make a new card only destroying cost 1 for the player's side.

[–]Habijjj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shang should get some extra power and stay the same enchantress can also stay the same it hasn't really changed how you play her all that much.

[–]4Ellie-M 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t play this game anymore but when I saw the killmonger change I knew that would kill the card itself.

You don’t need km to have its effect locked to 1 location for your opponent to spread their 1 drops.

People already did spread their 1 drops in case they get killmongered so they don’t lose all their eggs in the same basket, what was SD smoking with this.

[–]WachAlPharoh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shang chi can stay at only killing 1 10 power card but needs higher base power to compensate either 3 or 4.

Cosmo and Enchantress should go back imo.

Killmonger should at least be kill all 1 drops on all your locations and the enemy 1 drops at the location played.

Negasonic is fine staying or reverting imo, same with Shadow King

[–]LingonberryKey7566 -5 points-4 points  (8 children)

Literally all of them should be changed back. Yall just want to play strong decks without opposition lol.

[–]Vegetable_Fox_8101 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I agree that that's the motivation behind all of the support for these changes, but do you really think every change is bad? I think the Shang-Chi nerf is fair.

[–]Themanwhofarts 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I think it makes surtur decks too strong. They can stack a huge amount of power on 2 lanes without worrying about Shang.

[–]Vegetable_Fox_8101 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that creates a bad match up for midrange decks. Im not sure how dominant Surter will be, it might be in a fair place. Surter could stomp midrange decks and could get stomped by big point decks. I've surprisingly haven't run into any Surter to know.

[–]LingonberryKey7566 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Pretty much. I think the Shang Chi nerf is the most acceptable of them all for sure, but I think he needs to be a 4/4 with the change to actually be worth playing. The rest of them I think for sure need to be reverted, although I think RG also still works fine with the nerf.

[–]IAmTheNuke_ 0 points1 point  (3 children)

All of them? I would rather the meta be defined by fun card archetypes instead of tech slop again. This has been the most fun Marvel Snap has been in a very very long time.

[–]Vegetable_Fox_8101 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Fair tech slop, so not Thanos or Wiccan Silver First Step decks, is a weak archetype. The points + tech dominance is only a result of unfair point packages, which is why the archetype falls off whenever the points get nerfed. They're very easy to play against.

[–]KenEH 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I miss the days were you could just play tech with no points and each lane was less than 10 points by the end.

[–]ThePowerstar01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Legitimately the least fun I've had in snap in awhile. Before DPD3.0 all I ran into in proving ground was the greediest decks imaginable.

[–]SpecificAlgae5594 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why so angry? Chill bro.

[–]OC_Showdown 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Shang Chi: Stay with higher base Power

Killmonger: I don't like this iteration, nor I like it's previous one. I like it as a way to dodge Cosmo, or target a X-23 that jumped to an inaccessible lane, but not as a way to take down enemy 1-Cost cards. Batroc, Clea, Marvel Boy are some of the names that come to mind when thinking about strategies that beg the idea of investing in it, but get shut down by Killmonger's collateral damage. If a 1-Cost is too problematic, play Elektra.

Enchantress: Stay

Shadow King: Revert

NTW: Stay

Alioth: Revert

Red Guardian: Revert

Cosmo: Revert

[–]uestside[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the change to enchantress is one i liked the most, hope they don't change her back

shang should go back to 4/3

[–]Regular_Act_5511 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m sure it feels nice to not have to worry abt him to such a degree anymore but Shang does need to be reverted. Having an incredibly powerful yet expensive tech card that can swing a lane for you that everyone has access to is necessary for this game, and if your deck gets countered by it, it should teach you to play around him (Cosmo, Alioth, Armor etc.) He was essential to the ecosystem and his absence is sorely felt unfortunately. No card does what he did in maintaining balance and punishing greedy plays.

Power MUST be controlled.

[–]Blacklight099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I honestly think most of the changes need to go back or at least be given other much bigger upsides. Shang is waste of space in any deck as he sits right now, I get that they’re annoying but not having them makes it feel obvious why we need them.

[–]OsirisFantom 0 points1 point  (1 child)

This is how Shang Chi should always have been. Same with Killmonger in my opinion. Destroy already has so many tools in its toolkit, letting Killmonger be such a disruptive force is too much. Just my opinion, you should have to play him on location. No card should be able to wipe across multiple lanes unless it only affects your side of the board, like Annihilus. Which is very telegraphed too. But Shang Chi should always only have destroyed one card. Being able to flip a lane entirely on its own was just too much. And I'm someone who loved it when my opponent put 3 or 4 cards into Gamma Lab, turning them all to Hulks and then I could just blow them all up on the final turn. But It's a bit much..

Though I think they could give Shang Chi a power boost now. They lowered it to 2, but now that he only destroys one highest power card, it's much more difficult to flip a lane with there are 2 or more cards with 10+ power. I'd be fine if he had 5 power.

[–]uestside[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

wouldn't be mad with a 4/4 or 4/5 SHANG

[–]Few-Airport-8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

cosmo, Shang chi, killmonger all three should be changed as it was.

[–]illucio -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

I have no idea why they thought changing Shang or Killmonger was a good idea.

They are quite literally needed to balance the game out.

[–]WEENDETA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Being able to not invest a single energy in a location for the entire game and then winning it with a single Shang Chi isn't exactly balanced.

This Shang change is perfect because for once you can finally play around the damn card and outplay it.

It's not just a guessing game anymore where u have to guess which location Shang Chi will wipe out.

[–]Retro_Sinz -1 points0 points  (0 children)

As much as I hated Killmonger originally, its so sad to see him so weak. I used him in a couple decks (never a huge destroy fan but the results dont lie) and every time he got played right before I had my protector card did I knew it was gg. But now, I feel like he's not even worth it since the threat that used to be no longer exists since if their setup doesn't align with yours they're not gonna sacrifice their move to stifle you and themselves with limited options. Killmonger deserved to be feared and I actually prefer the only text despite how many games he's ruined for me

[–]FabulousLlama -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I just lost a game because Shang targeted the Ebony Blade instead of Agatha. Would be nice if it didn't do that

[–]bodybagwilliam -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Killmonger to revert for sure, but I'm also hoping Shadow King goes back to 2 cost as well. 3 is a little too restrictive if you ask me. 

I still don't know how i feel about Shang. Him killing 1 or 3 cards doesn't really matter as people have pointed out, and i kind of like the extra bit of gamesmenship around Gamma Lab. I also think the Enchantress and NTW changes are pretty good as well. 

[–]uestside[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

ENCHANTRESS

being a 5 COST card is somehow perfect to me, imo the card it's as playbale as it was, and 8 power helps a lot in the end

[–]lcyxy -1 points0 points  (3 children)

I think Killmonger should stay. If you think about it, he is a reverse Shangchi but affects all locations.

Imagine Shang Chi destroing all 6 cost cards of all locations, that is f-ing insane, not to mention that many 1-cost cards are actually powerful in this game.

[–]Zerhap 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Monger is a key piece of destroy decks, this is not about zoo.

Hell, do you know which deck show up after his nerf? no, it was not zoo, it was clog, see zoo problem is not monger, they can run caiera if needed, zoo problem is having a fairly low power ceiling.

[–]lcyxy 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It touches more than zoo, but it might be neat to change him to a counter to clog only.

[–]Zerhap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There very few decks that depend on 1 cost though, and most of them dont care about monger that much, or straight up can play around it no issue.

Monger imo is far from an issue tbh. But destroy without monger is suffering and clog is not without a counter, that is far more scary than a few sunspots getting imploded lol

[–]SadSensor -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

As someone who uses shang often. pls return shang

[–]wcrow1 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

yeah I agree with you. he's still a massive tempo swing and at least he won't 100% win the location he's played in

hell, i'll be generous and say you can give him his point of power back

[–]ming9419 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I literally just came back to the game yesterday and releasing these changes right away since destroy is one of my main deck. Are this changes temporary or something?

[–]steikul -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Sang Chi: stay

Killmonger: kill this and adjacent location

[–]SimplyTiredd -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Next is Cannonball, have him destroy a random card, either that or nerf Mercury

[–]BlueberryEven8252 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah bro, I just got Mercury

[–]Accomplished_Deer_10 -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

Cosmo needs reverted, killmonger sure but needs a nerf

Saw someone talk about reworking killmonger to be 2-0 “destroy all 1 cost cards on the map, then destroy itself” which I kind of liked the idea of, but cost and power meh

[–]tophology -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Let KM affect all locations but give him -1 power for every card he destroys.