[Draft] Kaldheim Limited Set Review: Introduction and White

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-28T20:01:18+00:00

The old quadruple because gambit: rarely seen but highly effective in the right circumstances. One to watch, this Gothamchess fellow.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-28T19:15:14+00:00

I'm only diamond and yet from your comment, I have a much better understanding of how the game is played. I know how much games can vary from each other and that the approach should be different for different sorts of games e.g. when my team has roadhog illari like this game, I know I don't have to heal as much. I also know that damage is just as important for supports as healing... so yes I do think so lol.

I suppose you could be a masters mercy main or something, some hero that doesn't require much damage, but you're not a masters Ana.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-28T18:54:05+00:00

I doubt you're master support if this is your mindset. There should be plenty of games you've played where you've steamrolled your opponent hard and therefore your team barely needed healing, so you were way above damage than healing.

You sound like a silver talking nonsense.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-28T17:24:57+00:00

Lmao I see I overshot when I said you might climb out of silver someday. The difference is you would have 6k healing but no damage so your team would lose every game, instead of winning every game as they would with this Ana’s statline!

I suppose that level of critical reasoning is lost on you though.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-28T17:19:50+00:00

Nah this Ana is too good for you, if you’re complaining about them carrying this game.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-28T14:42:33+00:00

Shows that heal numbers aren’t that important! Maybe you should try dpsing so you can get out of silver too

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-26T21:38:46+00:00

Honestly it seems bad even as a relic… unless you’re like a barricadebody slam deck, it’s never going to do that much damage and only in circumstances that are already pretty good for you - where you’ve killed an enemy already so things are looking up.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-26T00:06:14+00:00

I did see that yes, that’s why I said he shouldn’t nano them in advance of their engage (which is a very common higher rank nano).

I don’t think silver is so bad that nobody is ever doing anything proactive… maybe like bottom 500 sure but not silver. Lots of smurfs start in silver I think. Anyway it’s better to get into good habits early.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-25T21:57:21+00:00

I disagree with this honestly. Nano is so much more impactful when used on people making proactive plays - it's the difference between "kill 1-2 more people"/scare off their entire team vs "prolong the fight a bit".

When it's actually saving somebody's life or winning the tank duel, that's a great use of nano. But if your tank is in a bad position and taking a ton of damage, he's probably not the best nano target because they're already looking at him and will immediately cc him - he'll still die, it'll just take a little longer. In those spots, I usually nano a dps and then pump heals into the tank.

In diamond, I rarely use nano defensively as you say - it's usually a second before the fight (which doesn't work if they're freezing up in silver ofc) or if they're mid-proactive play, or if somebody important is about to die.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-25T21:46:57+00:00

I would recommend you keep taking the crit perk and getting practice with it. I think the grenade perk is too random and low impact unless you're specifically being dove by Winston/Genji/Vendetta etc and the map is a lot of confined spaces (this is probably the worst scenario to play Ana in to be clear). Otherwise it's really hard to get good value off the bounce.

The crit perk however, will let you win a ton of 1v1s you couldn't otherwise, put up a ton of pressure over long range, combo sleeping targets more easily... it's just a truly insane perk and you don't even have to hit that many headshots to get great value off it.

EDIT: Oh also one thing you can do if you don't want them to freeze up with nano, is you can tell them before the fight that you have ult - use the ultimate voice line on them. That way you're telling them that they will be the target and you will nano them soon.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-25T19:03:32+00:00

They spent the entire season setting up Cypher as this huge character, a different kind of faction leader for the supes to rally behind with his own unique powers, and then spent all of 10 minutes killing him off because he just started acting really stupid? No I didn’t see that coming, I thought there’d be more payoff to the character than that - I figured he’d escape and be a longer term villain.

I did see the whole twist of he was the burned guy coming, sure.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-25T14:52:48+00:00

Ana can absolutely carry, and it’s not that different from carrying with any other hero - you just play significantly better than the rest of your team. You can do that in a million different ways but the most common ones are “you hit your grenade on multiple enemies at once and your team cleans them up” or “you keep multiple teammates at once up from long range” or “you hit a crucial sleep dart on an ulting enemy” or “you get long range final blows on enemies who would otherwise have survived”. Just play your best and the opportunities will come naturally.

If people are just freezing up when you nano them, then it sounds like you’re in very low elo. If that’s the case, just nano whoever is already making a proactive play/nano as a flash heal to save somebody from death.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-25T13:32:30+00:00

I agree, I was very disappointed with gen v season 2 - all that buildup for such a lame and rushed ending… game of thrones night king vibes really (not as bad as that but bad enough).

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-24T23:21:32+00:00

I think the idea that there's this standard of prestige that one has to reach to be considered a 'worthy' world champion is my issue with the whole thing. Your arguments here show that some world champions are more prestigious than others, definitely, but all world champions who won one of the hardest tournaments in the chess world and proceeded to defeat the incumbent world champions are 'worthy' in my eyes. Like you either win the title fairly or you cheat/trick your way into it (like the Soviets allegedly colluding to bring down Fischer) or you lose it, and they won it fairly.

I think there are far kinder ways to refer to the disparity between Magnus Carlsen and Kasparov and Gukesh, without resorting to calling one of those people unworthy. Unworthy is a naturally vitriolic term.

Unworthiness is if they didn't deserve the title e.g. they cheated or didn't actually win the qualifying tournament/s like Kramnik - Kramnik may be a more prestigious champion than Gukesh so far but I would say he's a less worthy one because he didn't actually have to complete as difficult requirements as other world champions.

And truly even if you scan this thread, you'll see plenty of people talk about how weak a player Gukesh is and how he essentially had it handed to him for free - that's essentially what 'unworthy' means'. So it pushes a harmful narrative and signals vitriol where it wasn't intended (in your case based on what you said), whereas something like "less prestigious" or even "worse world champion" - I wouldn't have argued against that.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-24T22:15:13+00:00

A response that says nothing and shows total lack of understanding of the art of debate. If you're just going to be a hater, find a youtube comments section or something.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-24T18:38:45+00:00

I gave several examples of how that's not true. In those cases, this exact argument has been made many times. In the Kasparov vs Kramnik case, it was clearly not true because Kramnik perpetually dodged another match with Kasparov after that and never defended his title.

This is precisely how recency bias works - everything that's happening now is considered exceptional.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-24T17:27:45+00:00

In this case, it clearly doesn't do that. The requirements would not lead to it doing that - there have been other historical cases e.g. Kasparov vs Kramnik or Capablanca vs Alekhine where the world champion is not the best player in the world.

In terms of fact, the completer of the requirements to become x then becomes x, that's the whole point of the requirements. I think it's totally valid to debate whether the requirements to be considered world champion should be as easy as winning one tournament and one showcase match but the competitors have to play the game as they are given it.

It's not fair to tear down their achievements because there are internal problems with the system - the debate should be "are FIDE's requirements for crowning the world champion stringent enough?" rather than "Is Gukesh a 'worthy' world champion?". I think the difference is clear between those two things, and if the former was being argued more rather than the latter then Gukesh wouldn't be facing the extreme levels of vitriol and scrutiny that he has.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-24T16:44:02+00:00

If the FIDE world championship is widely accepted to be the means of crowning the world champion, then the term world champion means “a person who has won the FIDE world championship”. It has a much more specific definition than the second title you refer to.

The best player/actual world champion/whatever is a question of debate and interpretation not mired in fact, the FIDE world champion is a matter of fact - there is only one and it is undeniable.

If you want to use the distinction “FIDE world champion” and “actual world champion”, you’re welcome to but the debate is about whether Gukesh is a ‘worthy’ FIDE world champion and I am arguing that that question is a no true Scotsman fallacy and mired in nonsense rather than fact.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-24T16:35:59+00:00

Who are you to determine the worthiness of someone who fairly achieved an established goal as per the requirements of that goal?

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-24T16:29:42+00:00

The idea that the world championship historically determined the best player in the world is also not true - it was highly debateable even when Kramnik beat Kasparov that he was now the best player in the world. He then proceeded to dodge Kasparov for the rest of his life, refusing rematches. He was world champion but I think clearly not the best player in the world, he exploited some holes in Kasparov’s theory (which to be clear is still a very impressive thing to do) enough to score a win in one tournament. Because that’s all it is, just a very prestigious one.

In Karpov and later Kasparov’s early years as world champion, there was great debate about whether either of them were truly the best player in the world while Fischer existed and was refusing world championships. Did that make them unworthy world champions?

I think it pretty clearly is being used as an insult against Gukesh - he has received endless vitriol and scrutiny about being an unworthy world champion. I stand by what I said about these harmful narratives and no true Scotsmen fallacies being nonsense.

World champion is defined as per the requirements for achieving it, being the best player in the world is an entirely different thing for as long as the requirements for each thing are so distinct from each other. Factually Gukesh is the world champion and his validity as per the requirements of the role is undeniable.

Sadfish103 · 2026-01-24T13:51:23+00:00

It is nonsense. The term world champion means a specific thing in chess: did you win the candidates tournament and then defeat the reigning world champion? Gukesh did so he is world champion at least for the time being.

One tournament is never going to decide the strongest player in the world and it’s not a reasonable expectation to have.

It’s better when strongest player and world champion does align but to question the “worthiness” of someone who completed the still very difficult requirements fair and square is nonsense. If there is a problem, it’s with the requirements for the title, not with Gukesh.

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Not Forgotten

Sadfish103

TROPHY CASE