From Hearthstone Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Is damage removal?[edit source]

I think "hard" vs "soft" subcategories can allow "removal" to be a broad term. But if someone feels like using a stricter definition, let's have that discussion here first. - jerodast (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the soft/hard definition. Ultimately removal is a role, which can include anything that serves that purpose. However, as noted I don't think we should list Silence as technically being removal; if anything it's 'ability/enchantment removal', but that's a very specific and limited form of removal!
I'm not sure about the answers equivalency. I agree removal can be an answer, and perhaps answers usually are removal, but they're not the same thing. A big Taunt, Frost Nova or even Kel'Thuzad can act as a very nice answer to a board state, but are definitely not removal. I feel answer refers to answering the board state, or having an answer to that minion, with the meaning of a solution or counter rather than destruction or removal per se. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent edits! The one direct point of disagreement I have (which is not that big on the page) is the "speed" of removal - I think of the term as an effect that gets in there and takes care of the target, bam, done. Sylvanas for instance (assuming no instant sacrifice combo) is not only random but usually waits at least a turn to have an effect. Abomination waits a turn, and its targets can be buffed in the meantime, etc. By this logic it seems to me any minion could be called "removal" since on the next turn it might take out a dude, and that doesn't square with my understanding of the term. Whereas "answer" could indeed include a vanilla minion, as long as it takes out the right dude :) Minions, even vanilla ones, absolutely contribute to board control, but I wouldn't define removal as "anything that contributes to board control". Anyway, the distinction isn't that important to the page and it's completely debatable so I'm happy to leave it as is, just wanted to note it. - jerodast (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The distinction is an interesting one! Doomsayer is a good example: I would totally say "You need some more removal in your Freeze Mage deck - try a second Doomsayer". Other cards like Explosive Sheep are also played specifically for removal, and as removal, despite the delays and chance of failure. On the other hand Deathwing's Battlecry basically casts Twisting Nether, making it a clear case of built-in removal (guaranteed, with no delays) and yet because it also provides a big minion, I wouldn't think to call Deathwing removal.
I wanted to gather a range of opinions, so I asked a bunch of people on Twitter, and got a range of answers! Some said yes, some said no, some said not technically but that they do refer to those cards as removal. Doomsayer was considered to be removal much more than Deathwing, despite Deathwing's effect being guaranteed/reliable/not delayed.
What this tells me is A) the colloquial use of the term varies a lot, so we're probably better off not trying to present a single 'correct' definition of it; and B) using the term seems to be decided a lot by why people are including the card in their deck/its purpose, rather than the exact details of its effect.
I've made a draft change to the page, but I'm up for further revisions, and interested to hear your thoughts. I've also just realised that weapons, Battlecries and Charge are explicitly included in the definition of 'soft removal' at the top of the page! That's enough for me for today, though... -- Taohinton (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Draft looks fine to me. If anything you explain more about the issue than I would've bothered with :) Once a certain amount of subjectivity gets in there I feel like it's not worth the editing time to do more than a summary sentence or two to the effect of "it's an imprecise term". I suppose you have a point about Doomsayer - I might have said Doomsayer (and other delayed AoE) is a "board clear" but not "removal" which probably reveals the inconsistency of my personal definitions haha. As to Deathwing, I myself wouldn't call it "removal" if I had to pick only ONE label for it, but few could argue that it doesn't PARTLY act as removal. I have a feeling most people categorize cards that are "big game-enders" like Deathwing separate from other roles, for good reason. I also have a feeling I tend to focus more on the exact mechanics of a card in isolation whereas people who spend more time deckbuilding and playing constructed probably look at "role within the deck" much more. If you're looking for AoE removal you probably don't add a 10 mana card to the deck, even if it does AoE removal. The more I roll this idea around the more I think that's what it comes down to - "removal" as a deck slot, vs "removal" as a card effect. Defining it using straightforward effect definitions is easier so that's what I did, but I could see tweaking it to be more context/deck role/mana cost-conscious.
Explosive Sheep is fairly direct removal with Fireblast. I wonder if people would be less likely to label Abomination removal since it's a lot harder to pop on the turn you play it, and it's more likely to be a silence/transform target, even though the effect is the same. Also, because it's much more expensive than Sheep to achieve the same effect.
Anyway as I said, I don't feel that strongly about the distinction within the article, leave it as is or add more, s'all good. - jerodast (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)