The Most Problematic Cards in Marvel Snap (Opinion and Discussion)

36 Comments

1. Sounds like people just need to get better cards than nerf down good ones. Besides, Mister Negative is pretty redundant if your high-cost cards are already in your hand. A turn-4 play for Negative isn’t exactly game-breaking.

   • To really limit him, he should be 5-0 like Iron Man. He could be just like today’s cost with Psylocke, Electro or playing in that field which cards cost 1 less (which is not that common) and so he wouldn’t draw that many cards inverted like actual conditions.

2. I dont think mr negative is a problem, but leader surely is, maybe reducing his power to 1 or even 0 will do

   • Leader is not a problem… actually try playing with him. Plenty of decks are un-phased by a Leader on turn 6.

     • yes braindmged players can’t help anything

3. Negative is not a problem, nor is Sera. Leader and Leech are the current problems. Leader as stated above, should only be in the lane he’s played in. Leech should hit 2 cards at random, not all.

   • Leech is a turn-5 card with only 3 power. Sure he is game changing, but so is Aero, for example, with 8 power. Leech can’t save alone a game with 4 turns (5, considering its turn?) lost and just hit cards at hand, not from all deck, so he doesn’t affect your final draw (America?). Leech alone don’t do much more than Magneto or even Shang-Chi, f.ex.

     Leader is a problem, but a cost-6 card shouldn’t be limited to copy a lane with only 4 power. I could agree if he was 4-4, but a 6-cost card has to be game changer. You can’t expect 5 turns, specially building a strategy, to drop something that wouldn’t change anything in the end. And consider that he can be Leech’d, Cosmo’d, lanes filled, losing 2+ lanes etc. Copying a lane with 6-cost is lame. Just punish the owners of the card for people who likes others… I’d rather punish Wong than Leader.

     • I agree! People clearly haven’t played enough with Leader to see his vulnerabilities. I’d rather punish Wong than Leader as well and I played a lot with both. Like make Wong a regular ability rather than Ongoing or On Reveal so his abilities can’t be triggered twice which leads to a minute and a half of animations from the other cards. Leader is very situational and only loses when people try to bring out a big static card on one lane, like Hulk or Infinaut. That makes Leader a counter card.. but the moment cards with synergies pop up or your board is filled with trash, you are very restricted in what you can copy and if they have Ongoing cards that increase power prior to turn 6, 4 power probably won’t be enough for a guaranteed win.

     • you really want to nerf card that says: i will play here… you have 2 turns to stop me from doing it??? wong has 2 counter cards cosmo, enchantress. wong will tell you where he will play… when u dont have tech cards in deck is ur problem… if there is no draw, it is % bad luck. counter play vs Leader?? is only guess!!!! or bad play from opponent

4. Leader is the most bullshit card in existence!

   • Totally!

5. Sera and Negative have no problem. They take huge risks in the early stage, and they should build a card group around them. Once they can’t catch the core, the game will be lost. But Leader is different. Leader is placed wherever it is, which will not affect the portfolio, and can also enjoy its success

   • Leader is also not a problem. Unless the person is playing a static card like Hulk… But for decks that have synergies, copying the one card without the other synergy card can easily make you lose. Against cards like Arnim Zola, or some Ongoing cards, or if they already have Angela and Bishop down, its not going to give you a win because they will grow their power more than is needed to beat Leader’s measly 4 power.

6. I’m not sure it’s an influencer’s role to judge if a card is toxic for “the future of the game” but to evaluate its current toxicity instead. The future of the game only belongs to the devs. We have no visbility, we have no idea what’s coming, we don’t even know where the game will go for sure. The argument that it’s bad for the future of the game is irrelevant.

7. Totally agree with you on the Mister Negative topic. Shoulda get a rework so that it doesn’t flip power and cost of all cards (as you mentioned maybe the next card you play). On Sera i am not totally with you, pointslam is a kind of strategy you can/shoulda play. But i think she provides too much power, coulda lower her power to 0 or 1 -> But yeah first we need the Mister Negative rework 😉
   And finally Leader! Leader is such a bs card which totally destroyes the game atm, that card can just be included into every deck as you (nearly) always benefit from it. Copying all cards and giving the extra bonus on cards like Black Panther + giving a 4 power addition from it’s own is just too much. This card coulda be balanced in many different directions, like setting it up to 0 power (again, we need the Mister Negative rework first ;)) or make it to copy the next/last card your opponent plays/played

   These cards make it rly hard to balance the game/other cards. As you were 100% correct on the example with Bishop and Angela. These changes show us how the balance stuff shoulda go. We see that a card is a bit too strong, lower power or higher cos or change the ability description a bit for example lower or higher reveal/discard or whatever effects. But yeah if cards like Mister Negative exist, the balancing work gonna be rly hard imo 😛

8. Negative seems to me like a serious problem for the game design, every single card they make has to be statted around “is it broken with Negative” or given a restriction so it doesn’t work properly with Negative. I don’t think your solution is the way even if they can code it (being able to pick your negative card is going to be more consistent than current negative and lets the negative deck play some good cards that would be bad if negatived, at the expense of the occasional high roll “Psylocke, Negative, draw Negatived Iron Man + Mystique +White Tiger” kind of games.) But I think they do need to push the button on reworking his ability somehow.

   I suspect the devs thought of him as an inconsistent fun card as originally designed and it did take the beta community a while to really break him in half.

   Sera we all know is consistently one of the best cards in the game but something has to be. The big turn 6 strategy is vulnerable when the meta turns on it as we just saw with Leach Leader. They might drop another power off especially if Negative is addressed.

   Leader beats some things and is beaten handily by others. No deck is entitled to beat everything, but some people simply seem offended that their big turn 6 play with no synergy effects has a 6 cost counter. The stats do not show Leader as a problem card in win rate. As a beta player I think Leader is a card where people go through a phase of “how do I beat this?” as they start into pool 3 and as their collection gets more advanced they stop worrying about Leader because everything from Heimdall to Taskmaster to Spectrum to Destroyer to Wong screws it up. A simple Lizard on their side which reduces on power when the lane is filled can screw it up. Playing more cards into a lane than they have leftover space screws it. And of course, not being ahead screws it up…

   If you want to challenge something in Leech Leader as unfun, go after Leech which is also not overpowered but is irritating because unlike Leader there’s no counterplay around it, your cards are trashed and there’s nothing you can do. They should make it 5/6 and trash 2 random cards in hand or something.

   • I couldn’t agree more with you… except Leech. It was always a bad card, 5-3 in pool 2, almost nobody used, until someone found the synergy with Leader (and some others). To nerf its power (which I can agree, for sure), probably it should cost less. Wasting a turn-5, where people usually have 3+ cards (and drawing a leechless one to turn 6), to just affect 2 cards, it seems too little for 5 cost and only 3 power. Maybe it should be like Shang-Chi or Cosmo (to turn 3 or 4).

9. I’m surprised you left out Wave. The interaction with Death’s and She-Hulk’s cost reduction is insane. DeathWave’s ability to limit your opponent’s plays and simultaneously drop a 5/6-cost, Death and She-Hulk is so strong. Wave can also cheat out Galactus and other cards way ahead of curve.

   Part of the reason Leader is so prominent is it answers DeathWave’s turn 6 super well. If we hit DeathWave maybe Leader becomes less prominent but I also think he needs to be nerfed as well ’cause it feels so bad to dump your hand and he just copies whatever on top of his 4 power.

   I’m not as worried about Sera and Negative decks because as we’ve seen Leech can be a problem for those decks. However, Negative still has the problem that he limits design space too much so I could see him getting reworked in the future.

   • This!

     Wave is SO overpowered, specially in She-Hulk-Death decks, but also with almost any 6-cost card, as you stated of Galactus. No 3-cost card could be this game-changer. If it was 5-cost limiter and not 4, ok, it’d disrupt much more strategies and balance more the game. Or it could have a limit of playing turn like Magic/Ebony Maw. Wave should be played until turn 4 (so it’d affect turn 5 and not 6).

     • Thought about it a bit more and Wave’s effect being symmetrical is kinda okay. It’s just the interaction with other cost reduction effects so maybe they should bump She-Hulk’s and Death’s energy cost instead.

10. I just had my butt handed to me by a couple of Leader decks. lol Man, really makes me want to switch to playing 1-cost cards on Turn 6 from now on.

11. I definitely agree about Leader and Mr. Negative being problematic cards (the latter moreso because of his constant shadow looming over future card designs and rebalances).

    With regards to Sera and Negative decks, I feel like one of the current problems is that Sandman, a card that’s supposed to exist as a counter to “flood” decks like these has really weak stats, making him a hard sell in Series 3+. While I’m VERY glad that Sandman’s effect is symmetrical, he may as well read “Skip your turn 4” (or turn 2 & 3 if you ramp into him with Psylocke, but at that point, wouldn’t you be better off ramping into something stronger and asymmetrical? Ditto with something like pulling him with Jubilee).

    I saw a suggestion to buff Sandman to a 4/2 or maybe even a 4/3, which I think would be interesting to explore. He’s powerful in Series 2, but he seems much too weak to keep Series 3+ decks in check (if he were actually a viable counter to decks like Seracle, Negative, DeathWave, he’d already be somewhere on the Series 3+ tier lists!). So I’m curious how decks like Sera, Negative, DeathWave would fare in a world where Sandman were a bit stronger, and could actually act as a counter/deterrent to such deck types without putting you so far behind to gain his symmetrical effect.

    I’m curious to see how Zabu will impact the meta next month, given how impactful cost reduction cards have been so far (and how his ability could be paired with Sera, Mystique, and/or Negative, possibly to disgusting effect).

    • …while also avoiding the potential pitfalls of Leader + a potentially buffed Sandman becoming a problem (although again, this feels more like a problem with Leader’s current design IMO):
      > get ahead on turns 1-3
      > drop Sandman as 4/2 or 4/3
      > play something beefy or flexible on T5 (e.g. Red Skull, Vision, Captain Marvel)
      > T6 Leader in the lane your opponent is mostly likely to contest

    • Imagining next month a deck with no plays at turns 1, 2, 3, just piling 4-cost cards, then playing Zabu at 4 (not considering Psylocke or Elysium field), Mystique him (plus some other 4-cost at turn 5) and then lots of cost 0 cards at turn 6 (except Crossbones, probably).

12. Am I alone in thinking DareDevil is problem card? The selling point for this game is the simultaneous turns. I think it’s fair to say that out-guessing and surprising your opponent is the primary fun-generator during an actual game. DareDevil simply removes that for turn 5. Who thought that was a good idea? The card is just silly. Professor X, Hobgoblin, Spider-Man and others become an issue when they can be played with perfect board knowledge.
    There is a reason this game is not played sequentially. Why ruin that?

    • It is a pretty effective card at turning things around, but I still feel that the lack of detection on what the finisher is on T6 keeps Daredevil from being completely broken. A T6 Leader, Death or Destroyer can still turn things around beyond prediction.

      And finally, let’s not forget: your opponent KNOWS Daredevil is watching (literally flashing red alert), so they could just outsmart you by playing a red herring too.

13. I disagree on on 3. The cards have their uses but its not like you can play them in every deck. All you are really saying is “I keep losing to these cards, I want them broken so that nobody plays them again”. The game has MASSIVE RNG anyway. I’ve played these cards and half the time a location or a unlucky draw prevents me from making good use of them. Leader is usually okay because it stands on its own, however the trick is winning by the start of turn 6 (with the inclusion of its 4 power). If you don’t, it doesn’t matter what you copy from the opponent, you’ll lose. Also, there are decks where copying cards is irrelevant… Lets say Angela and Bishop are on the other players board. Or they have other ongoing cards that boost overall power. You can copy the cards being played to your side, but if you don’t have those other cards, their total power will keep going up beyond those cards they placed down and 4 power is pretty easy to make up. Leader isn’t always a sure win; this is coming from a player that used him a lot. What about Arnim Zola? What good is me copying that card last turn If I don’t have a card of equal or greater power that the opponent intends to send to the other 2 lanes to clutch the game? Now Mr Negative, what good is he if he is very late in your draws? He barely makes a difference in a game. You have to wait until turn 4 to even play him, unless you have a Psylocke in your hand early enough (or Electro if you don’t mind the 1 card per turn downside). As for Sera, you have to wait until turn 5 to even play her. And in late game it doesn’t make too much of a difference. Maybe it allows you to play 2 cards instead of one. Or 3 cards instead of 2. Unless its a zoo deck that throws all its 1 and 2 cost cards down during the last turn, Sera is not going to be much of a game changer.

    In my opinion, these cards can stay exactly as they are. They are not nearly that broken. There are some locations I’d rather get rid of or nerf more than these cards. Instead of nerfing, I’d rather see some new cards that could be used as counters. Like for Sera, (or even Magik) how about a card that ends the game on turn 5 (or instantly… could be related to TVA) (On Reveal)? Either way, keep the cards as they are.

14. Is there objectively a meta problem? The meta seems diverse, people are posting Infinity rank with all sorts of decks, obscure cards (leech) and builds keep emerging…

    So I guess it should come down to win rate and play rate data amd analytics.

    This article seems more about “cards its feels bad to lose to”.

15. for Mister Negative, i wish they would make it so he couldnt reduce cards below 1 cost, that would make the devs able to nerf cards to 0 power or less just as easily as they nerf cards to 1 power

16. Very nice read.

17. The only one I agree with is leader. It feels bad to play it and it feels bad to play against it. I would take a different step to nerfing it. Change it to 5 cost and add an effect similar to magik. Say something like Can’t be played after turn 5.

    • I also should say that should accompany a nerf to wave. Making her ability not stack with other cost reductions. Since with a nerf to leader like I suggest deathwave will be more dominant then ever.

18. Great article.

    I completely agree that Mister Negative warps the design space of the entire game. Your proposal to limit the effect to one card is ingenious, but I’m not sure it will be easy to program, and it still might have broken combos.

    One possible quick fix is to add (minimum 1 cost) to the cost-power swap effect. That is, Iron Man would become a 1/5 instead of an 0/5.

    But the fundamental problem is, as you said, that it turns two downsides (high cost and low power) into two upsides. So the other fix would be to change the “swap cost and power” ability with “set the cost equal to the power” (so Iron Man becomes a 0/0) or “set the power equal to the cost” (so Iron Man becomes a 5/5).

19. who says that leader is not problem… he is probably braindmged… currently its total waste of time to play this game because is random nonsense or leader… leader is everywhere, in any deck… and it’s really cancer… build lead = play leader = autowin and for person who does not have full collection or specific cards to be able to play around leader… it’s really frustrating …. and the top of it all is leech, you have cards against leader and hope opponent doesn’t have leech… leech it doesn’t need nerf it’s just an incredibly strong tech card for leader…

20. Playing against Sera or Negative never felt oppressive or unfair to me.
    But Leader and Leech are literally the opposite of what a card game is about.
    A healthy card game is all about “look what I can do!” with some “look what you cant do” salt.
    But Leader and Leech are pure party pooper “look what you cant do” cards and Leader does not even have a real downside.

    • Leech is fine. He’s already hardly showing up anymore. Leader though, leader is everywhere. (I’m guilty of it too, if you can’t beat them join them I guess.)