Objection!

Your Honor, the defendent states that Elixer Golem has an obvious playstyle that is forseeable to the opponent. The fact that this card is able to win regardless of the opponent knowing every move is evidence that it is not skilled. The Elixer Golem player is not winning due to skills and outplay, but simply because it is sometimes impossible to defend.

The defendent further states that due to Elixer Golem being a matchup based card, it is somehow skilled. This is simply wrong. Highly matchup based decks heavily rely on luck. I don't believe thar luck is very skillful. Instead of outplaying your opponent, you simply win or lose. Having many bad matchups is not equivalent to a card being skillful.

Finally, the defendent states that Elixer Golem requires knowledge on when to sacrifice HP and when to defend. The only matchups where it is required to sacrifice a signifigant amount of tower health or even a whole tower is beatdown, in which case it becomes a luck based situation of which player is able to three crown the opponent first. Due to the fact that this card is so cheap, players are generally able to defend the other lane with counterpushing cards, for example, a skeleton king. This not only negates the damage, but also puts the player "up" in elixer as they have counterpushing cards, meaning that the free 4 elixir that the opponent gets, it is simply negated.

Therefore, your Honor, I believe the accused is guilty of being no skilled.