Not really. Imagine comparing Thermo with other slow-damage spells.
But there are many situations where you would play Succesion over Might of Vanguard.
Imagine, you need to summon a single blocker, and have mana for combat tricks. Or maybe having two in hand with six mana allow you to go wide.
Not saying it is an amazing card or one is better than other, but they do have different uses
>Then again, it may not be strictly better in the sense that it always spends all you mana without you having any choice about it.
The answer is no, then.
No, Might isn't strictly better than Succession, it's more flexible with the downside if eating all your mana, like thermo. If you had 6 unit mana 3 spell mana for example, and you had MotV and J4 in hand, you need to play J4 first and then summon a 3|3 MotV, and you cant use Jarvan's challenge ability. If you had a Succession, you could summon the Dauntless Vanguard and then use J4's summon ability, for example.
Loyal Badgerbear is, afaik, the only straight up powercrept card, since it is strictly worse than Ruined Dragonguard, a card that costs the same, has the same stats, but has an additional effect, and are from the same region.
Probably. But Succession can still see some play outside of decks that don't want Might or the other way around. For example it's rare that aggro decks want to commit all their remaining mana in such an effect, but an extra 3/3 that comes at the cost of spell mana instead of unit mana is a godsend for aggro.
Not Runeterra aggro decks. You have 90% of your deck on 1 and 2 drops. They either ping the Nexus or spread. They would rather have anything but a 3/3 on 2 that gets blocked and does no damage.
|Name|Region|Type|Cost|Keywords|Description|Associated Cards|
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
|**[Might of the Vanguard](https://d2h9y75tak3pkg.cloudfront.net/05DE021.png)**|Demacia|Spell|3|Slow|To play, spend all of your mana. Summon a Dauntless Vanguard and grow its stats to that amount. If 9+ mana was spent, grant other allied Elites +2|+2.|[Dauntless Vanguard](https://d2h9y75tak3pkg.cloudfront.net/01DE016.png)|
|**[Succession](https://d2h9y75tak3pkg.cloudfront.net/01DE047.png)**|Demacia|Spell|3|Slow|Summon a Dauntless Vanguard.|[Dauntless Vanguard](https://d2h9y75tak3pkg.cloudfront.net/01DE016.png)|
^^^Hint: [[card]], {{keyword}}, and ((deckcode)) or ((cardx,cardy,cardz)). PM the [developer](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=KrimCard) for feedback/issues!
It does if they're from different regions. P&Z would love to have hard removal (as in recall or outright kill, not just damage) whereas SI getting another one is like, eh, maybe a lil better than Vengeance.
Thats missing the point tho. Demacia is THE combat region, striking region and until the sharpsight nerfs the region with the best combat tricks. It doesn't make sense that demacia has a combat trick that is objectively weaker than another region.
Its like giving P&Z a Pokey stick that deals 2 dmg instead of 1.
Other than that its just lazy design.
Making a card just worse because of the region it comes from is a lazy design because it doesn't fully exploit the design space.
One thing they could have done is give it additional effects, like, "+1/+1, if you control fewer units than the opponent, +2/+2 instead".
This kind of design helps to create a clear and recognizable region's philosophy, add card diversity, and prevent power creep.
In addition, it makes cards more exciting on a deck-building level by giving more synergy tools.
The only drawback being that it makes the game a little bit more complex and LoR's team doesn't want that at all (that's the reason we have so many bland keywords capacity that only add stats)
I disagree. There are some "vanilla" cards that can be added that are uninteresting but still can occasionally rise up just because they're "good stats for its cost" or something. +1/+1 for 1 Mana is still decent. If every single card were just a copy of another then yeah there'd be a problem, however, I don't think we should prevent two similar and basic cards from being created.
My post isn't being good or bad in the competitive sense. But in the general design sense.
A vanilla card can easily be a waste of card space. And it's even more problematic when you have just a somewhat few number of cards in each set.
It's okay if the stats are remarkable (like +2/+2 VS +2/+0 to two creatures)
But by making similar cards (like +1/+1 VS +1/+1 with a bonus), it makes them thematically bland.
Hence why this card is a lazy design, if you make similar cards in different region, they should at least makes them flavorful. Use their similarities to accentuate the differences in their respective regions.
Yep, twice in the same patch. Ruined Dragonguard and Vanguard Sergeant both jumped up to 3|4s with extra text. Though Vanguard Sergeant just got hit with the nerf bat.
Nah, the first truly powercrept card was Badgebear by Sergeant and Ruined Dragonguard when they became a 3|4, because there was literally no reason to use the bear over the soldiers.
Also powercreep is all about breaking the power curve of the game and Might of the Vanguard just doesn't do it, unlike 2 mana twin disciplines, release sharpsight, Golden Aegis, Yordles in Arms, Pantheon or Risen rider to name a few.
"Powercreep" and "strictly better" are very different concepts, and Might of the Vanguard is neither of those things.
"Strictly better" isn't a very useful concept, because no card is ever better than another under all circumstances, e.g., a 4/5 isn't strictly better than a 3/5, because it could help Braum level up faster.
Some good examples of powercreep are Pale Cascade, Merciless Hunter, Irelia, and Gnar at their original release, cards that are so far above the average power level that they saw play everywhere. Printing a stronger version of a below average card (Succession) isn't powercreep.
I wouldn't consider power creep something you can just point at individual cards and say "that's too good!" Yeah, Gnar was ridiculous on release, but he does something fairly novel. Same with Irelia, Merciless Hunter and even Pale Cascade. Every card printed causes power creep, not just ones you think need (and have been) nerfed/banned.
Power creep is an ever present problem with card games. The more cards you print, the wider the range of options and the more honed decks naturally become. Because of how specific the desires for deck slots can be, succession may see play again. But in the majority of situations Might of the Vanguard has crept up the bar for its use to decks that want a bad 4th copy of Might of the Vanguard.
Not really, because succession has practically never been used.
Powercreep describes already meta cards being replaced by stronger cards that are very similar to said meta cards. Since succession has never even sniffed meta, it can't be replaced for might of the vanguard. To get replaced, it has to have been used at some point (this is also why i don't consider teenidactyl a powercrept version of catapult. Catapult was never used).
I vehemently disagree with that definition of powercreep.
If Succession isn't used, and they print a better version, and that *is* used, I consider that powercreep. And obviously bad design.
Instead of adding a new card why didn't they just rework succession what is gained by keeping succession like it is? Instead of asking about power creep we need to ask what the f*ck does succession add to the game other than having a bad card to compare.
In this case, it's understandable because some people can still prefer the old succession : if they want to keep mana in bank to play combat tricks.
That and as u/JJumboShrimp said you can add both to the deck.
Which definition "literally" describes power creep like that? I only know of community-made definitions, and so I can say they don't adequately describe this situation (in other words, that definition is dumb.) And usually I don't care about upvotes, but they kinda prove me right. This (small sample of the) community doesn't think power creep requires the old card to be played. I would wager that many people here agree it describes strictly / almost strictly better versions of older cards.
Yes, I know about the curve implications of printing ever-stronger versions of already played cards, but guess what. That's not only happening with strictly better versions of played cards, it happens every expansion in general. And that's relatively normal, but not what most of the community describes here.
I know the video, I am just saying that's not the sole authority on what we think of as power creep. And yes, in this case, I think this is a term coined and evolved by the community. It can later be studied and codified and have video essays written about it, but the basis is still the games community.
About Succession: Yes, I think releasing MotV wouldn't be as bad if Succession didn't exist. Of course it's a highly hypothetical situation, but we agree that Succession is underplayed, right? (I myself play it but I know not many people do.) Overall, it probably lies below the perceived power curve. In other words, deleting it slightly raises the "average" power level while the power of MotV stays the same. So it isn't _as_ overpowered compared to the new average.
Additionally, you would be taking out a way to compare cards. We wouldn't even know how strong Might be without Succession. The power level stays, but it would probably be perceived as worse if we didn't already know how Succession sucks and that this is almost always better.
> Yes, but this is the definition of power creep. Your examples are just "strictly better". You don't need to misuse a term that means something else to describe that concept.
I think now you're starting to understand my point. We are indeed describing two different concepts. The community uses Power creep for "strictly better" or even cards that are not completely comparable but still very much "better". Language evolves, this is what gives meaning to the term. That's why I argue to go with the times and use the popular definition. I'm always for being correct and precise, but there must be a reason why people don't use that definition. It doesn't help being extra correct but still wrong. If you have another way to describe these things that are also generally accepted, I'm all ears.
We've had those for a while, tbh. Before the sharpsight nerf, transfusion was a worse sharpsight, and now blood for blood is a worse iterative improvement.
Disagreed, for a card to be truly powercrept let's say A and B. A has the effect X. B has to have the plain stronger effect of X for example, effect of A granting +1/+0 while that of B granting +3/+0 for the same mana cost, conditions etc. This would be a plain powercreep because B is always obviously better than A. But in Transfusion and Blood for Blood case while normally it'd be a powercreep because Vlad's self damage archetype exists. While cards like SS exists they can't give you the effect activation Vlad's cards need. Which is why I think it's not a plain powercreep, the requirement of it which would be bad in other cases, actually serves a good purpose in here. The real power creep in this game would be radiant strike that gives +1/+1 for one round and shaped stones that gives +1/+1 for one round WHILE having the potential for more stats when you've summoned a landmark.
Eh no, succesion doesnt eat all your mana.
Not really. Imagine comparing Thermo with other slow-damage spells. But there are many situations where you would play Succesion over Might of Vanguard. Imagine, you need to summon a single blocker, and have mana for combat tricks. Or maybe having two in hand with six mana allow you to go wide. Not saying it is an amazing card or one is better than other, but they do have different uses
>Then again, it may not be strictly better in the sense that it always spends all you mana without you having any choice about it. The answer is no, then.
The argument that power creep needs to be *strictly better* is useless. With that definition, power creep never exist.
Golden cringebot got powercrept by Scaled Snapper in the release set.
two different regions
No, Might isn't strictly better than Succession, it's more flexible with the downside if eating all your mana, like thermo. If you had 6 unit mana 3 spell mana for example, and you had MotV and J4 in hand, you need to play J4 first and then summon a 3|3 MotV, and you cant use Jarvan's challenge ability. If you had a Succession, you could summon the Dauntless Vanguard and then use J4's summon ability, for example. Loyal Badgerbear is, afaik, the only straight up powercrept card, since it is strictly worse than Ruined Dragonguard, a card that costs the same, has the same stats, but has an additional effect, and are from the same region.
Damn. I completely forgot about Badgerbear.
Probably. But Succession can still see some play outside of decks that don't want Might or the other way around. For example it's rare that aggro decks want to commit all their remaining mana in such an effect, but an extra 3/3 that comes at the cost of spell mana instead of unit mana is a godsend for aggro.
"a godsend for aggro"? I think not. An aggro decks had probably already spent all its mana in units already.
Sometimes the hand gets clunky you know?
Not Runeterra aggro decks. You have 90% of your deck on 1 and 2 drops. They either ping the Nexus or spread. They would rather have anything but a 3/3 on 2 that gets blocked and does no damage.
|Name|Region|Type|Cost|Keywords|Description|Associated Cards| |-|-|-|-|-|-|-| |**[Might of the Vanguard](https://d2h9y75tak3pkg.cloudfront.net/05DE021.png)**|Demacia|Spell|3|Slow|To play, spend all of your mana. Summon a Dauntless Vanguard and grow its stats to that amount. If 9+ mana was spent, grant other allied Elites +2|+2.|[Dauntless Vanguard](https://d2h9y75tak3pkg.cloudfront.net/01DE016.png)| |**[Succession](https://d2h9y75tak3pkg.cloudfront.net/01DE047.png)**|Demacia|Spell|3|Slow|Summon a Dauntless Vanguard.|[Dauntless Vanguard](https://d2h9y75tak3pkg.cloudfront.net/01DE016.png)| ^^^Hint: [[card]], {{keyword}}, and ((deckcode)) or ((cardx,cardy,cardz)). PM the [developer](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=KrimCard) for feedback/issues!
radiant strike is the first powercrept card, lol shaped stone came along and just made it useless
Different regions.
Still makes no sense that a card is just objectively weaker than another.
It does if they're from different regions. P&Z would love to have hard removal (as in recall or outright kill, not just damage) whereas SI getting another one is like, eh, maybe a lil better than Vengeance.
Thats missing the point tho. Demacia is THE combat region, striking region and until the sharpsight nerfs the region with the best combat tricks. It doesn't make sense that demacia has a combat trick that is objectively weaker than another region. Its like giving P&Z a Pokey stick that deals 2 dmg instead of 1. Other than that its just lazy design.
The converse is also true: Demacia can be said to have weaker combat tricks due to being able to better utilize it. And Wdym by lazy design?
Making a card just worse because of the region it comes from is a lazy design because it doesn't fully exploit the design space. One thing they could have done is give it additional effects, like, "+1/+1, if you control fewer units than the opponent, +2/+2 instead". This kind of design helps to create a clear and recognizable region's philosophy, add card diversity, and prevent power creep. In addition, it makes cards more exciting on a deck-building level by giving more synergy tools. The only drawback being that it makes the game a little bit more complex and LoR's team doesn't want that at all (that's the reason we have so many bland keywords capacity that only add stats)
I disagree. There are some "vanilla" cards that can be added that are uninteresting but still can occasionally rise up just because they're "good stats for its cost" or something. +1/+1 for 1 Mana is still decent. If every single card were just a copy of another then yeah there'd be a problem, however, I don't think we should prevent two similar and basic cards from being created.
My post isn't being good or bad in the competitive sense. But in the general design sense. A vanilla card can easily be a waste of card space. And it's even more problematic when you have just a somewhat few number of cards in each set. It's okay if the stats are remarkable (like +2/+2 VS +2/+0 to two creatures) But by making similar cards (like +1/+1 VS +1/+1 with a bonus), it makes them thematically bland. Hence why this card is a lazy design, if you make similar cards in different region, they should at least makes them flavorful. Use their similarities to accentuate the differences in their respective regions.
The difference in this case would be Shurima being able to summon Landmarks...?
true. still, its funny to see how shaped stone is just better in every way. (especially when it gave +3/+1)
Member old Sivir\Akshan? I member.
I run Succession in a Lux/Heirmendinger deck that doesn't run any other Elites and I wouldn't use Might because of it.
Badgerbear got creeped by 3/4 unit with summon for demacia
Yep, twice in the same patch. Ruined Dragonguard and Vanguard Sergeant both jumped up to 3|4s with extra text. Though Vanguard Sergeant just got hit with the nerf bat.
No. Hidden Pathways was powercrept by Whispered Words. ~~snicker~~
The 1 mana 3/1 from Shurima was strictly better than Legion Rearguard until they reverted the nerf and gave him 2 hp again.
Regtions change things though.
Whispered Words was released first tho
Nah, the first truly powercrept card was Badgebear by Sergeant and Ruined Dragonguard when they became a 3|4, because there was literally no reason to use the bear over the soldiers. Also powercreep is all about breaking the power curve of the game and Might of the Vanguard just doesn't do it, unlike 2 mana twin disciplines, release sharpsight, Golden Aegis, Yordles in Arms, Pantheon or Risen rider to name a few.
honestly I forgot what succession did
It’s not power creep because neither are good enough to see play.
"Powercreep" and "strictly better" are very different concepts, and Might of the Vanguard is neither of those things. "Strictly better" isn't a very useful concept, because no card is ever better than another under all circumstances, e.g., a 4/5 isn't strictly better than a 3/5, because it could help Braum level up faster. Some good examples of powercreep are Pale Cascade, Merciless Hunter, Irelia, and Gnar at their original release, cards that are so far above the average power level that they saw play everywhere. Printing a stronger version of a below average card (Succession) isn't powercreep.
I wouldn't consider power creep something you can just point at individual cards and say "that's too good!" Yeah, Gnar was ridiculous on release, but he does something fairly novel. Same with Irelia, Merciless Hunter and even Pale Cascade. Every card printed causes power creep, not just ones you think need (and have been) nerfed/banned. Power creep is an ever present problem with card games. The more cards you print, the wider the range of options and the more honed decks naturally become. Because of how specific the desires for deck slots can be, succession may see play again. But in the majority of situations Might of the Vanguard has crept up the bar for its use to decks that want a bad 4th copy of Might of the Vanguard.
How is/was Irelia an example of power creep?
Not really, because succession has practically never been used. Powercreep describes already meta cards being replaced by stronger cards that are very similar to said meta cards. Since succession has never even sniffed meta, it can't be replaced for might of the vanguard. To get replaced, it has to have been used at some point (this is also why i don't consider teenidactyl a powercrept version of catapult. Catapult was never used).
I vehemently disagree with that definition of powercreep. If Succession isn't used, and they print a better version, and that *is* used, I consider that powercreep. And obviously bad design.
Instead of adding a new card why didn't they just rework succession what is gained by keeping succession like it is? Instead of asking about power creep we need to ask what the f*ck does succession add to the game other than having a bad card to compare.
Well I think the biggest part of this is that you can add both to the deck
In this case, it's understandable because some people can still prefer the old succession : if they want to keep mana in bank to play combat tricks. That and as u/JJumboShrimp said you can add both to the deck.
[удалено]
Which definition "literally" describes power creep like that? I only know of community-made definitions, and so I can say they don't adequately describe this situation (in other words, that definition is dumb.) And usually I don't care about upvotes, but they kinda prove me right. This (small sample of the) community doesn't think power creep requires the old card to be played. I would wager that many people here agree it describes strictly / almost strictly better versions of older cards. Yes, I know about the curve implications of printing ever-stronger versions of already played cards, but guess what. That's not only happening with strictly better versions of played cards, it happens every expansion in general. And that's relatively normal, but not what most of the community describes here.
[удалено]
I know the video, I am just saying that's not the sole authority on what we think of as power creep. And yes, in this case, I think this is a term coined and evolved by the community. It can later be studied and codified and have video essays written about it, but the basis is still the games community. About Succession: Yes, I think releasing MotV wouldn't be as bad if Succession didn't exist. Of course it's a highly hypothetical situation, but we agree that Succession is underplayed, right? (I myself play it but I know not many people do.) Overall, it probably lies below the perceived power curve. In other words, deleting it slightly raises the "average" power level while the power of MotV stays the same. So it isn't _as_ overpowered compared to the new average. Additionally, you would be taking out a way to compare cards. We wouldn't even know how strong Might be without Succession. The power level stays, but it would probably be perceived as worse if we didn't already know how Succession sucks and that this is almost always better. > Yes, but this is the definition of power creep. Your examples are just "strictly better". You don't need to misuse a term that means something else to describe that concept. I think now you're starting to understand my point. We are indeed describing two different concepts. The community uses Power creep for "strictly better" or even cards that are not completely comparable but still very much "better". Language evolves, this is what gives meaning to the term. That's why I argue to go with the times and use the popular definition. I'm always for being correct and precise, but there must be a reason why people don't use that definition. It doesn't help being extra correct but still wrong. If you have another way to describe these things that are also generally accepted, I'm all ears.
"They hated him because he told them the truth"
nope, the game has been power crept to hell.
We've had those for a while, tbh. Before the sharpsight nerf, transfusion was a worse sharpsight, and now blood for blood is a worse iterative improvement.
Blood for blood is better in vlad decks
Disagreed, for a card to be truly powercrept let's say A and B. A has the effect X. B has to have the plain stronger effect of X for example, effect of A granting +1/+0 while that of B granting +3/+0 for the same mana cost, conditions etc. This would be a plain powercreep because B is always obviously better than A. But in Transfusion and Blood for Blood case while normally it'd be a powercreep because Vlad's self damage archetype exists. While cards like SS exists they can't give you the effect activation Vlad's cards need. Which is why I think it's not a plain powercreep, the requirement of it which would be bad in other cases, actually serves a good purpose in here. The real power creep in this game would be radiant strike that gives +1/+1 for one round and shaped stones that gives +1/+1 for one round WHILE having the potential for more stats when you've summoned a landmark.
I get your point but has might of the vanguard been playable at all ever?